Another worthless discovery.

Are you referring to Costner's discovery of "dry land"?

Scientists have discovered a new type of alien planet — a steamy waterworld that is larger than Earth but smaller than Uranus.

Wow... How big is... Hahahaha

You're right Nick46, what good did learning things ever do anyone?

I don't recall any episode or film in the Star Trek series in which the Enterprise circles Uranus, let alone while looking for Klingons. That's just silly.

larger than Earth but smaller than Uranus.

MWAHAHAHAHAHA

Sorry people I can't help it.

Smaller than Uranus, Santorum is on his way.

I admit, the "smaller than Uranus" sentence that opened the article made me laugh. Must be the teenager buried deep inside me, somewhere.

Nick46, tell me, since you feel space exploration is worthless, what do YOU consider a worthwhile use of our tax dollars and time?

Me too. I was like wow, what's bigger than the earth, but smaller than my anus? LOL

No, Harcourt Fenton Mudd!! Not just teenagers, as I thought the same thing...... thinking to myself..."Gee! Did this writer just say 'smaller than my anus?' "...and I'm 70. "Once a kid, always a kid", I say. After all, why should kids have all the fun....

FAR OUT!

behave! lol

Interesting article though.

Lets spend the money paying down the debt and leave the klingons on Bushs Uranus.

Harcourt Fenton Mudd

I think at one time we as Americans had a vision for the future, and part of that was space exploration. I think it is probably one of the greatest endeavors of man. The problem I see is that consistently the minority in our society is calling the shots because the majority remains silent. And the minority are theologians who will not promote anything that could possibly prove them wrong. i.e the world is flat, the sun revolves around the earth.

Sadly, I could see the entire space program being shut down.

Sad day when a joke is collapsed on the vine folks, really appreciate it. I spent 25 years in the military to protect the 1st amendment. Thanks a lot.

Thanks for your service!

Some have no sense of humor.

Or is it that nobody laughs any more?

I don't know, but I thought it was humorous and we should have the ability to bring them back up.

John - Thank You VERY Much, and I think people need to lighten up a bit too, life is too short to live it up-tight. Peace to you.

Larger than what? Smaller than my what? Hey what you talking about?

If Pluto was demoted from being a planet I'm sure the scientific community can come up with a change of name for the planet "Uranus". My entry would be Sunaru.

Mine would be "Santorum" of course.

Nick46 wrote

Another worthless discovery.

Just wait, eventually they might find the crude oil planet. Then space exploration might really get the funding it deserves.

I think this is fascinating, but it's sad how so many would label any type of discoveries that are astronomy- and space-related as worthless.

I wonder if they make use of any of the technologies that NASA has brought us over the years?

Nah, that would be hypocritical...

Hydrogen + Oxygen + energy = H20, Max.

Nick46, tell me, since you feel space exploration is worthless, what do YOU consider a worthwhile use of our tax dollars and time?

Something that would reduce my taxes not add to them. Something that would be beneficial to me not just a paycheck for an esoteric industry.

So, there we have it. It should be all about Nick46. Might as well get rid of the entire government - everything they do increases your taxes.

Nick46,

NASA, in addition to well publicized human and robotic missions, also monitors the Sun and planet Earth.

How is that "beneficial to me"? As we should all know, the Sun is currently in a more active cycle for sunspot activity, which can cause overloads to and/or destroy power grids and satellites. Monitoring our own planet has lead to better understanding of seasonal cycles, including hurricane/typhoon prediction and monitoring, tornado and severe weather predictions and alerts, and a better understanding of rain/drought cycles (El Nino/La Nina) and how they effect the entire country (not just the West Coast).

Human spaceflight has brought us the MRI and CAT scan (technology originally developed to take better photos of the Moon), kidney dialysis machines (based on NASA tech), pacemakers (wireless communication used after implantation based on NASA satellite communications technology), EMS communications (better and faster communications between ambulances and hospitals based on NASA communications tech), and, of course, Tang and Astronaut Ice Cream.

That's just sampling of advances (some greater than others) brought about by and/or with NASA technology; you can Google a LOT more.

It is not NASA's mission to raise or reduce our taxes, nor would your taxes go down by eliminating NASA or up by increased funding. If you have tax complaints, I suggest contacting your Congressional representatives.

To add value to the above (i.e. "beneficial to me"), how many lives have been saved by proper weather forecasts and warnings (i.e. hurricane, tornado, severe weather) and improved medical technology? How many more can be saved by better prediction capabilities and continued advances in space medicine?

Is that beneficial (and non-esoteric) enough?

Tang

Myth! And you see most of your post is a myth. Those would have been invented regardless of NASA. And not only did we fund their development but we pay huge amounts of money to purchase them.

Tang, wow what a great development we couldn't live without it. Just how many of the current generation know anything about Tang? Dialysis we pay huge amounts to get it and die without it. Life extension without quality who benefits? The heathcare industry and maybe the patient wit false hope.

Are you defining life-quality?

I didn't realize that you could place value on the days someone else lives with their families and other loved ones. And by you, I mean specifically you, not the general you.

Nick46

Tang

Myth! And you see most of your post is a myth. Those would have been invented regardless of NASA. And not only did we fund their development but we pay huge amounts of money to purchase them.

Tang, wow what a great development we couldn't live without it. Just how many of the current generation know anything about Tang? Dialysis we pay huge amounts to get it and die without it. Life extension without quality who benefits? The heathcare industry and maybe the patient wit false hope.

The only "myth" is the tired line you use. It is very easy to say "they would have been invented" X, but can you prove it? What business or entity was focused on or needed to take pictures of the Moon in such detail as needed for the Apollo program? None.

Would Earth observation be done without NASA? Probably, but who would launch and maintain the satellites?

NOAA monitors Earth weather, but if not for NASA satellites our weather prediction would be even worse than it is now. And who would monitor space weather? If a solar storm strike the Earth, whole power grids can go overload and be destroyed. Think that might effect "you" and your taxes?

Tell me, what companies were focused on creating MRI and CAT scans, since you believe they "would have been invented regardless"? What company would have launched and maintained a GPS system? Not follow on or subsequent technologies, the first one? You know, the hardest and most expensive since NO ONE ELSE is able or willing?

I knew you would focus on Tang, which is why I included it. You have such ire for a beverage that is the butt of many jokes. But your focus on Tang shows a lack of understanding of what NASA actually does, and what they have accomplished. You obviously know how to use a computer, so Google NASA or go to Wikipedia. It will take five minutes to learn about NASA.

Nick46, people like you scare me, because you apparently don't take the time to self educate. And the idiocracy is growing.

I knew you would focus on Tang, which is why I included it.

ROFLMAO!! Sounds like you should have done a little self education.

Accretion disk?

One theory is cometary impacts.

Sea monkies are real. This may prove it.

Yeah, but ultimately, aren't all cosmic bodies brought together by accretion? So if material accretes to form an icey comet, and those comets hit a forming planetoid and bring the water, then really it was just accretion, albeit a more complex form than the simple view that is taught to school kids. There is still so much we do not know about planetary system formation..

Saying that the planetary water comes from comets does not really solve this origin of water question - how do comets get their water in the first place? And given the enormous mass of water likely involved in this particular case, comets are very unlikely source of it.

I would guess large quantities of hydrogen gas coming into contact with oxygen gas, thus forming an opportunity to create a molecule some people call H2O. Given the correct pressure and temperature of course, this could create water on a planetary scale.

mob_barley is right. Its accretion and then a matter of where the planet is in location to its star. Too close and the water that is frozen in with the rocky materials is burned off. Too far and ice and rock stay frozen and dont separate. Just right and the ice becomes water. This planet looks to be in a league of its own though.

The hydrogen is the easy part - that stuff is everywhere in the Universe. But the mechanism of oxygen formation is as follows: heavy stars burn helium in the Carbon cycle that generates Oxygen and Nitrogen. Elements that have an atomic mass that is a mutliple of 4 are most common since they can be built up from helium in variation of the carbon cycle... Thus under the right conditions, oxygen can combine with hydrogen.
...and if the accretion disk does not contain the right elements, you get very little water in the end

Someone left the bathtub faucet on.

Not sure but probably has something to do with two parts Hydrogen and one part Oxygen. Both gases that are prevalent in their atmostphere! I'm not a scientist but I do remember some of my high school chemistry.

A giant planet full of heated water....pretty frickin cool. Even though the surface temperatures are very high, the water is likely very deep, and Im sure the gradient in temperatures with depth varies a lot = larger chance of life developing.

Additionally, how fast the planet rotates is another huge factor in the likelihood of life. If it doesnt rotate at all (which has been observed before), then there will be a continual "goldilocks" zone in the water which would be just right, not boiling and not freezing.

"One drop at a time"?

When stars grow old... they use up all their hydrogen and star fusion with heavier elements until they explode... when they explode... they cast off all the heavy elements into space where new stars and planets form... in reality... we are all made of stars.

One question, if its so steamy, how it hold any water?

thepunisher, The answer is gravity. Although it's steam, it still can't escape the gravitational pull of the planet.

As for how you get that much water in one place, I'd like to know that too. I'd also like to know why water is rare. Is it simply because oxygen and hydrogen are more likely to bond with other elements?

It rains there all the time ,I was there in my first life

Some of the most likely contributory factors to the origin of the Earth's oceans are as follows:

• The cooling of the primordial Earth to the point where the outgassed volatile components were held in an atmosphere of sufficient pressure for the stabilization and retention of liquid water.
• Comets, trans-Neptunian objects or water-rich meteorites (protoplanets) from the outer reaches of the main asteroid belt colliding with the Earth may have brought water to the world's oceans. Measurements of the ratio of the hydrogen isotopes deuterium and protium point to asteroids, since similar percentage impurities in carbon-rich chondrites were found to oceanic water, whereas previous measurement of the isotopes' concentrations in comets and trans-Neptunian objects correspond only slightly to water on the earth.
• Biochemically through mineralization and photosynthesis.
• Gradual leakage of water stored in hydrous minerals of the Earth's rocks.
• Photolysis: radiation can break down chemical bonds on the surface.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_water_on_Earth

Gotta go with MOB, planet built by accretion. to Punisher, planet held together by gravity, you know gravity? the force that runs the entire universe? (oops, along with time, of course)

it sounds like much of it is boiling away (the steamy atmosphere), and pressure raises the boiling point of water. That is how pressure cookers work. So enough gravity and atmospheric pressure would force much of the water to remain as a liquid.

What a strange balancing act.

it is...

Boiling point depends on pressure. I think it's Charles' law of physics. However, I may be wrong. But the pressure part is right.

H2O is H2O whether it is ice, liquid, or steam. Think sauna rather than ocean. Steam is still steam at 700 Kelvin.

May also be hydrogen dominant atmosphere rather than water.

http://m.iopscience.iop.org/0004-637X/745/1/3

The article refers obliquely to the possible existence of exotic forms of water such as 'hot ice' or 'super-fluid water'. Any chemistry experts available to explain what that means?

High pressure will allow a liquid to remain a liquid at temperatures that would, at earth sea level pressures, boil it away.

Hot ice is ice at temperatures above 32F. It form when the pressure is such that the melting point increases. Super-fluid water exists where you have liquid water at temperatures well above 212F. It is liquid water where the water molecules are far apart due to the temperature but the pressure keeps it from going through a state change to steam.

Well, I'm no expert (big surprise, I know), but here is the first line from the wikipedia entry on "superfluid"..

Superfluid is a state of matter in which the matter behaves like a fluid without viscosity and with extremely high thermal conductivity.

I have not looked up hot ice as of yet, but it sounds like the pressure pushes the molecules together so much that the hot water behaves more like ice than liquid water. But that's just a guess.

My question is, If you smash the molecules of water together in that fashion does that change the density? Wouldn't water at the bottom of Earth's ocean be more dense than water I get from the tap?

JS in SD, excellent explanation.

Jack and ageofreason are absolutely correct. You may have noticed that even slight differences in atmospheric pressure will affect the temperature at which water boils.

I would imagine that the atmosphere is so dense that the surface of the water does not boil but is indeed very hot. If the planet is made up of as much water as this article implies, then when you get to depths that are great enough, the temprerature is still very high, but the pressure is too high for water to remain liquid so you get a kind of crystalized water- hot ice.

Alan Boyle? Are you out there?

Mob,

Water is resistant to compression in its liquid state. That is why hydraulics are more reliable than neumatics (sp?). I'm guessing you know that, though...

Only a purely logical thought train, I'm guessing you're right, but I think the major impact of pressure is not allowing molecules to escape into their gaseous form.

Would this "hot ice" be less dense than the superfluid water, allowing it float as ice does here on Earth, or would it sink and add to the core?

I would think it would also have to float or eventually the whole thing would solidify, just as would have happened here, if ice didn't float the way that it does.

Venus may have looked like this planet eons ago, before all its water boiled away.

Actually it's 212F.

Pressurized Water reactors kind of work like that. They use a pressurizer to boil water in it's own container and the pressure put off by the developed steam bubble exerts a uniform pressure through the rest of the closed system. This allows water to remain liquid at a higher temperature than it's normal 212 degree boiling point.

Yes, water at the bottom of the Earth's deepest oceans is more dense than surface water, but only by a few percent, as I recall.

S. Mcillny has it. I once worked at a high temp. hot water generating plant. 400 degree water at 370 to 390 p.s.i. .. anyone who actually read the article shoulda/woulda/ coulda understood the concept.....

OK, superfluid water at high temp and high pressure I understand. Charles' Law, Boyle's Law, whatever. But what is 'hot ice' and how would that form? Even higher pressures? As I mentioned above, ice is less dense than liquid water so pressurizing water won't force it to become ice. You have to lower it's temperature. So then, I ask again, WTF is 'hot ice'??

Mikey,

This may just be a compilation or summary of above points independently derived:

maybe as you raise the temperature necessary to allow liquids to become gasses by increasing pressure (and increasing the amount of energy necessary for escape) pressure could make it more difficult for atoms to move freely leading to "hot ice" at temps above 32 degrees. And, as you point out, ice isn't all about density as water slightly above freezing is more dense than ice (so ice floats).

If adding pressure forced already dense (cold) water to assume a crystaline structure at higher temps that would be hot ice.

This is probably all ideas that you have already considered, but maybe one of the physicists can point out the flaws.

The current proposed launch date of Webb is sometime between 2018 and never. It's launch date has been sliding back almost as fast as its budget has been rising far beyond all expectation.

That is too bad. We can only hope they don't scrap the project.

If they don't meet the 2018 schedule and stay within the 8 or 9 billion dollar budget then it'll get the chop. I've read that 8.8 billion is the last straw, but I'm not sure about that figure. It should not have cost this much, but it's worth it to me personally. If it never flies then we'll all be missing out.

Michael, any insight as to the likelihood of it launching in the 2018 timeframe??

Sad part is people bitch and complain about the price of futhering mankinds understanding of the universe, yet mums the word on the cost of a new fighter jet that isnt that much better than the current one in use, that costs a hellofa lot more than this telescope.

Indeed very sad. But it's really not mums the word, we all know the jet will cost pantloads more, but since that has to do with maintaining our defensive superiority our country makes the necessary investment in that tech. But scientific superiority (I'd rather call it scientific advancement, because I'd like it to benefit all mankind) is put on the back burner. This kind of prioritization will be what hold mankind from ever coming together as one population working towards reasonable goals. Our differences can be what makes us stronger or they can be what divides us further. Prioritizing military over diplomacy and science will be our undoing. But, that's just my opinion and I realize it may be a touch naive with the realities of our world.

One thing I don't understand with JWST, if the costs exceeds $8.8 billion and they shut it down, is that not like swimming 3/4 of the way to your destination, getting tired, and swimming back. I am definitely in favor of keeping governmental projects on time and in budget, but if most of the telescope is built and the cancel decision is made (hopefully not), why not launch what you have minus whatever instruments are not ready/too expensive?

I feel the same way about the swimming metaphor. Might as well finish the last 1/4. But, I think the argument to that is basically where will it end. If the projected cost was 2.5 billion and it ends up costing 9 billion then that's more than triple the estimated cost. So it's like rather than swimming in water all of a sudden you're swimming in water (although, I think blood is like 5 times thicker than water).

Basically, there needs to be an upper limit. Rather than turning around and swimming back after 3/4 of the journey it's more like having a coast guard helicopter come pick you up.

To me, the Webb space telescope is certainly worth 10 billion dollars. But what is the upper limit of what we're willing to pay for dramatic science upgrades? It's an interesting debate.

Upper limit of what I'd be willing to pay for science? Oh, how about 1/2 the defense budget, for a start.

About 20 to 50% of NASA's budget falls under the guise of "defense related expenditure" according to wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States#Budget_breakdown_for_2012

Lots of pressure too..

I found this on Wikipedia. Pretty interesting.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperthermophile

We know it here on earth as "shrimp tempura".

Life as we know it, as water-dependent, would not survive beyond the boiling temperature of water. Several life forms, primarily unicellular prokaryotes (like amoeba) and certain fungi (yeast), have found ways to make viable spores survive boiling temperatures for relatively long periods of time (though they can usually be killed in pressure cookers). However, those spores will not morph into a fully-grown organism in those environments, as their water would boil off.

Not only that, but proteins that have evolved on Earth use liquid water for both transportation and its polar properties to maintain their shape. The more complex proteins have often evolved to only be viable in small temperature ranges - hence why humans need to maintain relatively constant body temperature or bad things happen. These proteins won't form properly if they don't have enough ambient energy (if it's too cold), and can denature (essentially unwind and lose their useful characteristic shape) if they have too much (if it's too hot).

Of course, in a different environment, it's possible that life would have evolved to account for these different temperatures, especially if the pressure is high enough to maintain liquid form. Perhaps they use the same DNA-amino acid based structure we have. Perhaps there is another viable method of encoding and reproducing that we have not thought of. But, if life can exist in a place like Europa or Titan, and some versions of life on Earth might be able to withstand it, then who knows? I eagerly await the results from the Lake Vostok expedition next year.

Excellent points janstince!! BUT i'd stipulate tthe possibility(ies) that there are varying points of pressure and temp on such a planet. We just can't read it finely enough. Remember all, that temp is an educated guess, that pressure is an educated guess. and guesses COULD be wrong!! :) --S--

Remember all, that temp is an educated guess, that pressure is an educated guess. and guesses COULD be wrong!!

Could be, but if it isn't the significance is staggering. I'm with Janstince - I'm looking forward to the results of further analysis.

Huh?

The title I see says "Scientists find an alien-world 'like no planet we know of'", and makes no mention of "Earth". If anything, the title implys the planet is nothing at all like the Earth.

They call it a super Earth. That is the phrase they need to do away with. It's merely a rock planet as opposed to a gas planet. Maybe that's how they should refer to these 'super Earths'. Rock vs Gas. It is certainly not an Earth like planet, super or otherwise.

Wow Jack, take your Valium! It's merely a reference. I fail to understand why people get so worked up over terminology. The same thing happened when the Astronomic community demoted Pluto from a planet to a dwarf planet, or planetoid. It's just a term. Relax people.

People get annoyed because what is meant by the scientists is that it's a rocky planet, but when people read "earth like" or "super earth" they think, oh, it's got oceans, and a nice climate. The reality: The surface could be airless and lava covered and have a gravitational pull that would turn any earth life into a 2 dimensional layer of ooze...but they'd call it "earth like" because it's not gaseous. It's highly deceptive and serves only to get the public's attention.

"Superterran" is a better term. See, the periodic table of exoplanets:

http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/12/05/9233790-alien-planets-get-pigeonholed

Jack, the super-earth category of planets includes planets in the 2X to 10X the mass of earth range. The "earth" in the name refers only to the mass of earth.

You have to remember that science can only make valid classifications based on what can be observed, not what can be imagined. The limits of technology right now are such that we can determine the mass of a planet, and sometimes, if we're lucky, its size and density, and a rough estimate of temperature range. (And if we're really lucky, like in this case, we can get some idea of its atmosphere, but that only works for planets in just the right orbital arrangement relative to both its home star and earth) That is all.

Think of it this way: If an alien looked at our solar system using the same technology we use to look for exoplanets, if they could see the inner planets at all (they'd have to be pretty close to us for that), earth, venus, and mars would appear virtually identical to them (Mars would just look a little bit smaller.)

And therefore, Venus and Mars both qualify as "earth-like" planets, and any alien planet similar to Venus or Mars, or more similar to earth than Venus or Mars, also qualify as an earth-like planet. And any planet more similar to Earth than Uranus/Neptune qualifies as a super-earth.

not for a few hundred years...

Urrectum was outvoted by Uromney which always loses in the end...

LOLS!

Ugottabe kiddin me. Sounds like some LINsanity to me. errr wait...

Actually, the new planet is called Urethra.

Why? Because we need new jokes.

I could not agree more Tony. I could not agree more.

I blame Galileo, him and his damn telescopes

Urethra? Urethra Franklin?

R.E.S.P.E.C.T... What that catheter means to me!

In this line of discussion, I'm just waiting for the smell-o-scope, but without cryogenics I'll miss it by around 900 years.

I can see it now - we learn how to fold space, visit the planet, and we will find cotton picking Manchester United Fans there, too.

Ah ha, that answers my question :-)

Usually by "life" writers mean sentient beings who can go "yo, wassup" allthough thinking sentient life cannot survive is just as asinine.

According to wikipedia "[I]t is thought unlikely that microbes could survive at temperatures above 150°C (302°F), as the cohesion of DNA and other vital molecules begins to break down at this point."

It may not support human life, as we know it, but does it have any life on it? If a planet is found with life forms, there is no guarantee it would resemble our life forms. And yet we have people who do not believe in science.

Considering that science has not discovered every type of life form that exists on planet Earth, I don't really think we should pay to much creed to the phrase "life as we know it". It's just a general phrase that gets tossed around as if we are limiting what we are looking at. Really we are looking in what we think is the most efficient way, and we are looking for situations that would be conducive to life forming here, but that doesn't mean we may not stumble onto some weird space goats grazing on the otherwise dead surface of some radiated gas giant moon.

Well, I gather that many people feel some kind of life might be common enough in the universe, but even if it can originate and survive in extreme environments, the amount of diversification that resulted in sentient, communicative, 'yo wassup' life here on Earth might well be very rare indeed.

"[I]t is thought unlikely that microbes could survive at temperatures above 150°C (302°F), as the cohesion of DNA and other vital molecules begins to break down at this point."

But if the life evolved in these conditions, or it evolved as the conditions changed to this, wouldn't it be adapted to what it knows?

Mob Barley - Now I agree with that 100%, life as WE know it. There may be things out there that our small brains cannot even comprehend yet, much less explain. You get the vine of the day my friend. Peace

Not only that, but deep down in that alien ocean, the temperature will eventually cool down to temperatures that we would consider tolerable.

Don't pay too much attention to the issue of hot thermal vents on our planet. Although water at these vents may indeed be greater than 446 degrees F, life is not directly in that water. It lives around the fringes between the very hot and very cold. "Life as we know it" is the key phrase here. Proteins in our planet denature as the temps get too hot, but isn't that primarily because life here has evolved to exist at these conditions? Life did not start under the conditions we have now, and could very well have taken some odd twists and turns evolving under drastically different conditions...

Although I hope we find life elsewhere during my lifetime, I am under no illusions that it has to look or behave as life here.

Great question.

I'm not sure, but I think in 5 or so billion years when the Sun becomes a red giant, Earth's water will be boiled away leaving behind a molten ball of magma. But don't quote me on that, cuz I really don't understand this phase in our solar system's projected timeline. I've seen some television programs that say Earth may get pushed out away from the sun a little, and others that have said that Earth will be gobbled up by the Sun. One neat thing to think about is how a place like Titan might evolve in those billions of years. Perhaps it will be a habitable place given the time and changes that will happen. Who knows..

Invest in the future now at Titan Realty!

You know, I've often wondered how much it would cost to buy land in the Sahara? At some point it very well could turn green again (it has been in the past) and then that land would be worth a LOT more :-D

I agree. And I think there are many scientists who would also argue that following the water will only help us find life that exists in environments similar to ours here on Earth. Titan, (the Saturnian moon) for example, has liquid on it's surface. Not that liquid is a precursor for life, but I'm sure it helps. So, it's not hard to imagine some hydrocarbon-breathing whale or something swimming around on Titan.

The real important thing to keep in mind though, I think, is that we find these ..rules.. for lack of a better word, that govern nature and physics and whatnot. So, these rules should apply across the board, regardless of the environment one finds life in. Now, I'm not saying they must apply across the board, because maybe our observed set of rules is simply incomplete. But since all life on Earth has DNA, you'd expect to find all life everywhere to contain or utilize DNA, right? Well, maybe not, but we've never observed anything like that, so we don't really know where or how to look to find that kind of life (if you'd even call something like that "life"). Following the water, I think, certainly narrows the playing field. But I do agree that we may miss some things using that philosophy.

This is one the best arguments for continuing our exploration of Mars and other planets in our solar system with advanced missions and even one day soon, a manned mission. If we can detect clear signs of life forms which are radically different from the DNA + H2O type of life we're familiar with here on Earth, this discovery would open up many new possibilities which we currently don't even recognize.

"I want to know why the scientist always assume that life must be based on the same building blocks as it is here on earth."

What you're asking is, "Why can't scientists embrace science fiction as fact?

Because science is the study of the known. It is a doctrine set of rules that must be followed in order to be considered 'science'. Anything 'unknown' is not science, but speculation. A scientist never speculates or else it isn't science, and can be discredited.

There may be something on Mars staring right at us, but we merely cannot comprehend it.

I most definitely agree. Life on Earth only evolved the way it did because of the conditions present. Science fiction has, throughout the years, shown us many alien species evolved as the dominant race from animals other than primates, yet these have all been humanoid, generally mammalian creatures. I think it may be because of this that scientists are locked into believing that's what alien life has to be. The conditons of the environment and the ecosystem of the planet in question would cause evolutionary changes and adaptations of any sort to any degree. Any zooologist knows this simply by studying creatures on our own planet.

Vexxa.Wow, you cannot be more wrong. Science is the testing/comparison of "speculations"(theories) in order to prove their validity or learn where the holes in these theories lie. Science fiction and science fact are two separate things however; that co-exist in a symbiotic relationship. Science fiction being the "if we can do this, then wouldn't the next step be this?" or "if we can do this and we can do this, if we combine the two, shouldn't we be able to do this?" spurring the scientists who have the know-how to think "how could we do that?". A good example: "video phones" have been a sci-fi staple for decades; and now we have them via webcams and the internet.

How funny! I was having that very same thought when your comment scrolled onto my screen.

The article, of course, was wicked cool; the real discovery was to follow, though. As I read through the Comments, (rare, itself), it struck me: my soul did NOT feel like it was drowning in the shallow end of the gene pool! Thereby making this little forum "like no [other] we know of".

Uranus is big, thats what.

They are trying to tell you that this weird planet has a volume between 1.08321×10^12 km3 and 6.833×10^13 km3. That is what they are trying to tell you.

Science. That's how.

By spectroscopic examination of the light that passes thru it from its star. Water is kinda transparent.

As the article explained, scientists have looked at images of the planet made using the Hubble telescope which allows them to do a photo-spectroscopy analysis of the light coming from the star and through the atmosphere of the planet, then reaching us. It was described in the article as "looking at the planet's sunset" through the Hubble telescope.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_spectroscopy

Also, determining it's density will allow scientists to form a pretty good guess of what it's made of. So, a simple formula like Density = Mass/Volume will probably give you an idea of what something is made of. I'm not sure how astronomers come to these numbers but it seems that if a planet transits between their star and our line of site we can get a good idea of it's size (and volume) and I would imagine finding it's mass has something to do with determining the tug it has on it's parents star. But I'm just guessing at all this.

And I believe they can use calculations based on the orbital period and distance from the star as well.

I don't recall any mention of probes or ships in the article, but 40 light years is pretty close to us on a comparitive basis. The very nearest star to us is about 4 light years away, so this is only 10 times further than that. It's within the Milky Way galaxy, if that keeps it simple.

Actually, at facilities like the Large Hadron Collider, scientists can get particles fairly close to the speed of light. It is a pretty amazing thing when you think about it. You can flip a light switch and get light up to light speed. But to get protons or lead nuclei up to that speed is pretty amazing.

Anyways, as Mikey points out, this article is not about sending anything to this planetary system.

Also, just because we don't have access to space via American spaceships right now, that doesn't mean we will never have that ability. So, just because us Earthlings don't have a faster-than-light drive now that doesn't mean we won't figure it out someday down the road. And if we ever do then it'll be nice knowing where the more watery planets are.

What if we find life on the planet? Even though we can't travel there all that fast, we can still send radio waves to it. Then in a mere 40 years they'll get our message of "yo dawg I heard you like water, so I put a water in your alien so you can alien while you water."

That's much better than most stars, which would take far longer and the joke would be tired by then plus the original people that sent it wouldn't be alive anymore to giggle when it's received.

So in summary, I agree that it is close to earth.

Correct. The boiling point keeps increasing until it reaches about 705 deg F at a pressure of 3208 psi. This is known in thermodynamics as a "critical point."

Actually, if I recall correctly one of the Gliese planets has an average density of something like 2.5. So that puts it between water and rock. So it would likely have some of both. I forget which planet it was but it was one that Jeff Marcy found (that really narrows it down, I know).

581 d Perhaps?

http://phl.upr.edu/projects/habitable-exoplanets-catalog/results