NASA's Kepler mission has confirmed its first planet in the habitablezone of a distant sun-like star

NASA Science News for Dec. 5, 2011

In a significant milestone on the road to finding Earth's "twin"
elsewhere in the galaxy, NASA's Kepler mission has confirmed its first
planet in the habitable zone of a distant sun-like star.

FULL STORY at
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news...c_firstplanet/

On 5 Äåê, 21:46, Sam Wormley wrote:
NASA Science News for Dec. 5, 2011

In a significant milestone on the road to finding Earth's "twin"
elsewhere in the galaxy, NASA's Kepler mission has confirmed its first
planet in the habitable zone of a distant sun-like star.

FULL STORY athttp://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2011/05dec_first...

Sam,

I just sent an email to the principal investigator looking for the KOI
designation. Hopefully the transit depth is not prohibitive. ;-)

Anthony.

On 12/5/11 2:02 PM, Anthony Ayiomamitis wrote:
On 5 Δεκ, 21:46, Sam wrote:
NASA Science News for Dec. 5, 2011

In a significant milestone on the road to finding Earth's "twin"
elsewhere in the galaxy, NASA's Kepler mission has confirmed its first
planet in the habitable zone of a distant sun-like star.

FULL STORY athttp://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2011/05dec_first...

Sam,

I just sent an email to the principal investigator looking for the KOI
designation. Hopefully the transit depth is not prohibitive. ;-)

Anthony.

Very good, Anthony. Thanks for pursuing this!
-Sam

Sam Wormley wrote in
:

NASA Science News for Dec. 5, 2011

In a significant milestone on the road to finding Earth's "twin"
elsewhere in the galaxy, NASA's Kepler mission has confirmed its first
planet in the habitable zone of a distant sun-like star.

FULL STORY at
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news.../05dec_firstpl
anet/




4 million years to get there by chemical rocket. 1000 years by nuclear
bomb propulsion.

On Mon, 05 Dec 2011 23:06:21 -0600, Rich wrote:

4 million years to get there by chemical rocket. 1000 years by nuclear
bomb propulsion.

And both equally impossible until our societies undergo a huge amount
of growth. By which time, I'm sure that using nuclear bombs for
propulsion will be considered laughably primitive.

On Dec 5, 9:08*pm, Brenda shrilled:

*That's only 1200 years for any directed message packets to get any possible reply, and considering that our space massage packet transceiving capability has only taken place within the last 0.1% of our human evolution, or .000001% of our planet age is only increasing those odds of never getting any reply for billions of years.

I have it on good authority that the moment they read your first post
they will put Earth permanently on their black list. ;-)

In reality it is a water-covered world with a highly developed species
of bubble ring blowers. Who sing their nights away with planet-
circling arias. Mention of what exists beyond the water surface is
still strictly taboo after millions of years of carefully orchestrated
ignorance by the ruling religiooze, Koi party. As is any criticism of
the singing of their celebrity-status demi-gods. However, they have
never known a war over religion, territory, resources or water
shortages. So have never needed to develop any form of science or
technology. In 600 years your drivel will pass their planet unnoticed
in an ever expanding bubble of irrelevant nonsense. As will mine. Doh-
rey-mee-fah-soh-lah-tee dogh! :-)

Rich:
4 million years to get there by chemical rocket. 1000 years by nuclear
bomb propulsion.

Chris L Peterson:
And both equally impossible until our societies undergo a huge amount
of growth. By which time, I'm sure that using nuclear bombs for
propulsion will be considered laughably primitive.

Chris, you are such a pessimist. How can you use the word "impossible"
before we have even tried detonating a nuke with Rich strapped to it?

I'm not saying he would end up on his star, but I know that he would no
longer be on Earth, and that can't be a bad thing.

My own view? Glad you asked. Barring the discovery of a very different
physics, mankind will not ever travel to a planet outside this Solar
System. I'm told "But we have to or we will not survive as a species,"
to which I answer "Yes, that's right." The best and worst I can say
about that is "That's life. Don't let it ruin your weekend."

--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

On Tue, 06 Dec 2011 08:38:13 -0500, Davoud wrote:

Chris, you are such a pessimist. How can you use the word "impossible"
before we have even tried detonating a nuke with Rich strapped to it?

I'd worry that all that hate and bitterness, vaporized over the Earth,
could spell the end of our existence. If the LHC could produce a
Universe destroying black hole, surely the black hole of Rich's soul
can't be ignored, either.


My own view? Glad you asked. Barring the discovery of a very different
physics, mankind will not ever travel to a planet outside this Solar
System. I'm told "But we have to or we will not survive as a species,"
to which I answer "Yes, that's right." The best and worst I can say
about that is "That's life. Don't let it ruin your weekend."

I think you are probably right. But "ever" can be a long time.
Personally, I think we won't leave the Solar System because I think it
unlikely we will survive as a technological species long enough to do
so. But if we do manage to survive, robotic exploration of nearby
stars doesn't seem too much of a stretch. But that would be the
distant future. And certainly, our survival as a species doesn't
require leaving the Solar System.

Chris L Peterson wrote in
:

On Mon, 05 Dec 2011 23:06:21 -0600, Rich wrote:

4 million years to get there by chemical rocket. 1000 years by nuclear
bomb propulsion.

And both equally impossible until our societies undergo a huge amount
of growth. By which time, I'm sure that using nuclear bombs for
propulsion will be considered laughably primitive.


Sure. They probably thought that in the 1950's when they began using
chemical rockets. Still using them...

Davoud wrote in :

Rich:
4 million years to get there by chemical rocket. 1000 years by
nuclear bomb propulsion.

Chris L Peterson:
And both equally impossible until our societies undergo a huge amount
of growth. By which time, I'm sure that using nuclear bombs for
propulsion will be considered laughably primitive.

Chris, you are such a pessimist. How can you use the word "impossible"
before we have even tried detonating a nuke with Rich strapped to it?

I'm not saying he would end up on his star, but I know that he would
no longer be on Earth, and that can't be a bad thing.

My own view? Glad you asked. Barring the discovery of a very different
physics, mankind will not ever travel to a planet outside this Solar
System. I'm told "But we have to or we will not survive as a species,"
to which I answer "Yes, that's right." The best and worst I can say
about that is "That's life. Don't let it ruin your weekend."


What's sad is that the people in the U.S. experience testicle shrinkage
more and more as the years go by. No risk, no gain. They detonated
thousands of megatons of nukes in the 1950s and 1960s to near ZERO
negative impact. They could easily do it again if not for a world
populated by enviro-sissies.