Ace of Spades HQ

« Defining Torture Down (For America, Natch) | Main | Andrew Sullivanesque Email Of The Day* »

July 13, 2005

Planet Discovered In Triple-Sun System

newly discovered planet has bountiful sunshine, with not one, not two, but three suns glowing in its sky.
It is the first extrasolar planet found in a system with three stars. How a planet was born amidst these competing gravitational forces will be a challenge for planet formation theories.

"The environment in which this planet exists is quite spectacular," said Maciej Konacki from the California Institute of Technology. "With three suns, the sky view must be out of this world -- literally and figuratively."

The triple-star system, HD 188753, is located 149 light-years away in the constellation Cygnus. The primary star is like our Sun, weighing 1.06 solar masses. The other two stars form a tightly bound pair, which is separated from the primary by approximately the Sun-Saturn distance.

"The pair more or less acts as one star," Konacki told SPACE.com.

The combined mass of the close pair is 1.63 solar masses.

Using the 10-meter Keck I telescope in Hawaii, Konacki noticed evidence for a planet orbiting the primary star. This newfound gas giant is slightly larger than Jupiter and whirls around its central star in a 3.5-day orbit. A planet so close to its star would be very hot.

The rest of the article explains, pretty interestingly, why it's hard to explain how this planet formed. Apparently gas giants can't form except far from a sun, past a point called the "snow line."

Also, the article contains assertions by scientists that "there are almost certainly no vampires whatsoever" on the new three-sun planet.

An artist's bullshit conception of
the new planet. Note the uncanny
absence of vampires.

posted by Ace at 08:32 PM

Comments

"Note: absolutely no vampires in view."

Damned if I'm moving, then.

Posted by: Megan on July 13, 2005 08:37 PM

How soon can we send some moonbats to populate the place? If it's a barren wasteland as described, it'll fit right in with their view of life. As a matter of fact, it'll fit right in with their ability to think at all.

Posted by: Carlos on July 13, 2005 08:49 PM

What about thetans? Because I heard from this guy named Tom that thetans are worse than vampires. Cost more to get rid of too.

Posted by: digitalbrownshirt on July 13, 2005 09:14 PM

So, we've finally found Tatooine? Out in the ass-end of space? Cool.

Posted by: lawhawk on July 13, 2005 10:13 PM

Actually lawhawk, binary systems are quite common, and a number of planets have been "found" orbiting around them.

This is big news because it's the first planet found around a *trinary* star system. Like Ace said, cool.

Still, one thing I haven't heard a good explanation for is how come so many of these systems found include planets incredibly close to their stars. Very few (if any) planetary systems involve planets in the so-called "habitable" zones like here at home. And, even when planets are found further out, there's still usually one of these crazy characters racing close-in around their star.

I'm wondering if all these folks are doing their math right, because otherwise, we may really be getting pretty unique.

Then again, since these systems are all found through gravitational observations, i.e. wobbling, that's made it a lot easier to find systems with big honkin' giants, much larger than even Jupiter. It may be the case that these super-giants will inevitably end up falling close in to their stars over time, thus giving us these wacky orbits.

My guess is, as our measurements improve and we can find more systems with Jupiter-size planets (and eventually smaller), we will probably find more systems laid out like ours. Or perhaps not.

Damn, the universe is a wild place, huh? I only wish I could stick around to learn a whole lot more. Damn mortality, ruins all the fun.

Cheers,
Dave at Garfield Ridge

Posted by: Dave at Garfield Ridge on July 13, 2005 10:22 PM

I don't believe a word of it. These "scientists" are just whoring for grant money.

Posted by: Ted on July 13, 2005 10:39 PM

Let's invade it.

Just think how much that will annoy Michael Moore.

Posted by: Slublog on July 13, 2005 10:47 PM

If I remember my Popular Science level astrophysics correctly, most of the planets found so far have been gas giants (because they have an easy enough size to detect gravitationally). However many of them have been found in the inner system, in complete contradiction of the established theories.

Of course the old theories were created by looking at our solar system and assuming all of the rest of creation must look the same. It seems a little myopic nowadays.

Posted by: HowardDevore on July 14, 2005 01:10 AM

Howard - yep, the easiest planets to find are large gas giants in close orbit around their suns. And that's what we've been finding.

As you say, that has led to a certain amount of re-thinking for the planet-formation theorists.

Posted by: Pixy Misa on July 14, 2005 02:11 AM

Did vin diesel crash land on this planet?

Posted by: Kevin on July 14, 2005 04:26 AM

Actually, some extra-solar planets have been found when the plane of their orbits take them in front of their parent star from our point of view. This method produces a distinct pattern of brightness dropoff, but also favors planets close to their star. It is hard to discover alien Neptunes or Plutos in this manner due to the length of time between transits.

Posted by: Kingslasher on July 14, 2005 07:06 AM

I blame Bush.

Posted by: on July 14, 2005 09:17 AM

It will take some advancing of telescope technlody before we can spot any terrestrial extrasolar planets...the gravitational forces of a star would likely pull apart any rocky planet big enough fro us to see now, so what we usually find is gas giants. There are probably millions of smaller rocky planets at more reasonable distances from their suns that we just can't see. Hopefully, that will change soon.

And yeah, this wouldn't be a planet you would want to crash land on. Bloodthirsty creatures would be the last of your worries.

Posted by: brak on July 14, 2005 09:29 AM

Damn you Kevin for beating me to the obvious Vin Diesel/Pitch Black remark.

I swear I'll get you for this. Mark my words!! *shaking fist excitedly* I'll get you!!

Posted by: Birkel on July 14, 2005 09:47 AM

Yes, but what would a pair of split-crotch panties cost there?

Posted by: Chris on July 14, 2005 10:54 AM

Isn't this all just a little too convenient? HELLO!!
KKKarl Rove is being investigated, people. All roads lead to Rove, everything is related to Rove and Rove is the cause of all effects.

In summation; I question the timing.

Posted by: lauraw on July 14, 2005 11:28 AM

I think I see....YES! It's a Unicorn!

Posted by: on July 14, 2005 12:26 PM

Well at least you're not spotting a Unicron...

Posted by: HowardDevore on July 14, 2005 01:05 PM

Amazon.com Widgets

Now Available!
The Deplorable Gourmet
A Horde-sourced Cookbook
[All profits go to charity]

Top Headlines

Kid punks CNN chump by speaking truth to retard

Podcast: CBD and Sefton talk birthright citizenship, the 14th Amendment and SCOTUS, no boots in Iran, Artemis II and refocusing NASA, the NBA's hatred of everything non-woke, and more!

In more marketing for Project Hail Mary, scientists say they've found the biosigns indicating life growing on an alien planet. It's not proof, just signatures of chemicals that are produced by biological metabolism, and it could be nothing, but scientists think it's a strong sign that this planet is inhabited by something.

In a paper published in the Astrophysical Journal Letters, a team of scientists announced the detection of dimethyl sulfide (along with a similar detection of dimethyl disulfide) in the atmosphere of an exoplanet called K2-18b. This is actually the second detection of dimethyl sulfide made on this planet, following a tentative detection in 2023.
Tons of chemicals are detected in the atmospheres of celestial objects every day. But dimethyl sulfide is different, because on Earth, it's only produced by living organisms.
"It is a shock to the system," Nikku Madhusudhan, first author on the paper, told the New York Times. "We spent an enormous amount of time just trying to get rid of the signal."

He means they tried to prove the signal was caused by things other than dimethyl sulfide but they could not.

Artemis moon shot a go, scheduled for 6:24 Eastern time tonight
Great marketing arranged by Amazon to promote Project Hail Mary. Okay not really but it does work out that way.

TJM talks John Boorman, director of Excalibur

Good rickroll

What? Skeleton of the most famous Musketeer, D'Artagnan, possibly discovered in Dutch church closet.
Dumas picked four names of real musketeers out of a history book, D'Artagnan, Athos, Aramis, and Porthos. So there was an actual D'Artagnan, though he made most of the story up. (Or, you know, all of it.)*

Charles de Batz de Castelmore, known as d'Artagnan, the famous musketeer of Kings Louis XIII and Louis XIV, spent his life in the service of the French crown.
The Gascon nobleman inspired Alexandre Dumas's hero in "The Three Musketeers" in the 19th century, a character now known worldwide thanks to the novel and numerous film adaptations.
D'Artagnan was killed during the siege of Maastricht in 1673, and there is a statue honoring the musketeer in the city. His final resting place has remained a mystery ever since.

A lot of Dumas's stories are based on bits of real history. The plot of the >Three Musketeers, about trying to recover lost diamonds from the queen's necklace, was cribbed from the then-almost-contemporaneous Affair of the Queen's Necklace. And the Man in the Iron Mask is based on real accounts of a prisoner forced to wear a mask (though I think it was a velvet mask).
* Oh, I should mention, Dumas says all this, about finding the names in an old book, in the prologue to his novel. But authors lie a lot. They frequently present fictions as based on historic fact. The twist is, he was actually telling the truth here. At least about these four musketeers having actually existed and served under Louis XIV.
Fun fact: You know the beginning of A Fistful of Dollars where the local gunslingers make fun of Clint Eastwood's donkey and Eastwood demands they apologize to the donkey? That's lifted from The Three Musketeers. Rochefort mocks D'Artagnan's old, brokedown farm horse and D'Artagnan is incensed.

A commenter asked which should be read first, The Hobbit of LOTR?
Easy, no question -- read The Hobbit first. It's actually the start of the story and comes first chronologically. It sets up some major characters and major pieces in play in LOTR.
Also, the Hobbit is Beginner-Friendly, which LOTR isn't. The Hobbit really is a delightful book, and a fast read. It's chatty, it's casual, it's exciting, and it's funny. In that dry cheeky British humor way. I love that the narrator is constantly making little asides and commentary, like he's just sitting next to you telling you this story as it occurs to him.
LOTR is a very long story. Fifteen hundred pages or so. The Hobbit is relatively short and very punchy and easy to read. If you don't like The Hobbit, you can skip out on LOTR. If you do like it, you'll be primed to read LOTR.
Oh, I should say: The Hobbit is written as if it's for children, but one of those smart children's stories that are also for adults. Don't worry, there's also real fighting and violence and horror in it, too.
LOTR is written for adults. (It's said that Tolkien wrote both for his children, but LOTR was written 17 years later, when his children were adults.) Some might not like The Hobbit due to its sometimes frivolous tone. Me, I love it. I find it constantly amusing. Both are really good but there is a starkly different tone to both. LOTR is epic, grand, and serious, about a world war, The Hobbit is light and breezy, and about a heist. Though a heist that culminates in a war for the spoils.

The Hobbit Challenge: Read two more chapters. I didn't have much time. Bilbo got the ring.
I noticed a continuity problem. Maybe. Now, as of the time of The Hobbit, it was unknown that this magic ring was in fact a Ring of Power, and it was doubly unknown that it was the Ring of Power, the Master Ring that controlled the others.
But the narrator -- who we will learn in LOTR was none of than Bilbo himself, who wrote the book as "There and Back Again" -- says this about Gollum's ring:
"But who knows how Gollum had come by that present [the Ring], ages ago in the old days when such rings were still at large in the world? Perhaps even the Master who ruled them could not have said."
In another passage, the ring is identified as a "ring of power."
I don't know, I always thought there was a distinction between mere magic rings and the Rings of Power created by Sauron. But this suggests that Bilbo knew this was a ring of power created by Sauron.
Now I don't remember when Bilbo wrote the Hobbit. In the movie, he shows Frodo the book in Rivendell, and I guess he wrote it after he left the Shire. I guess he might have added in the part about the ring being a ring of power created by "the Master" after Gandalf appraised him of his research into the ring.
I never noticed this before. I know Tolkien re-wrote this chapter while he was writing LOTR to make the ring important from the start. And also to make Gollum more sinister and evil, and also to remove the part where Gollum actually offers Bilbo the ring as a "present" -- Bilbo had already found it on his own, but Gollum was wiling to give it away, which obviously is not something the rewritten Gollum would ever do.
But I had no memory of the ring being suggested to be The Ring so early in the tale.

Finish the job, Mr. President!
Melanie Phillips lays out the case for the total destruction of the Iranian government and armed forces. [CBD]

TJM acts like he knows anything about John Wick and screenwriting. It's embarrassing, really.

Podcast: Sefton and CBD talk about how would a peace treaty with Iran work, Democrats defending murderers and rapists, The GOP vs. Dem bench for 2028, composting bodies? And more!

Oh, I forgot to mention this quote from Pete Hegseth, reported by Roger Kimball: "We are sharing the ocean with the Iranian Navy. We're giving them the bottom half."

Batman fires The Batman
Batman is disgusted by the Joachim Phoenix version of Joker
Batman tries to fire Superman
Batman is still workshopping his Bat-Voice

Forgotten 80s Mystery Click: Red Leather Suit and Sweatband Edition
And I was here to please
I'm even on knees
Makin' love to whoever I please
I gotta do it my way
Or no way at all

Tomorrow is March 25th, "Tolkien Reading Day," because March 25th is the day when the Ring is destroyed in the book. I think I'm going to start the Hobbit tomorrow and read all four books this time.
The only bad part of the trilogy are the Frodo/Sam chapters in The Two Towers. They're repetitive, slow, and mostly about the weather and terrain. But most everything else is good. Weirdly, the Frodo-Sam chapters in Return of the King are exciting and action-packed and among the best in the trilogy. (Though the chapters with everyone else in Return of the King get pretty slow again. Mostly people talking about marching towards war, and then marching towards war.)

Sec. Army recognizes ODU Army ROTC cadets for their bravery and sacrifice in private ceremony
[Hat Tip: Diogenes] [CBD]

TJM gives you a brief tour of his movie collection.

Forgotten 80s Mystery Click
One day I'm gonna write a poem in a letter
One day I'm gonna get that faculty together
Remember that everybody has to wait in line
Oh, [Song Title], look out world, oh, you know I've got mine

US decimation of Iran's ICBM forces is due to Space Force's instant detection of launches -- and the launchers' hiding places -- and rapid counter-attack via missiles
AI is doing a lot of the work in analyzing images to find the exact hiding place of the launchers. Counter-strikes are now coming in four hours after a launch, whereas previously it might have taken days for humans to go over the imagery and data.