backtop


Print 54 comment(s) - last by RMTimeKill.. on May 23 at 2:58 PM

A newly discovered exoplanet may support life ... but don't pack your bags yet

20 light years from Earth slumbers the red dwarf star Gliese 581.  Today a team of astronomers announced an astonishing discovery-- the star has a planet which is potentially habitable by humanity.

Over 200 so-called "exoplanets" -- planets outside our own solar system -- have already been found.  But so far, all of them have suffered from the "goldilocks problem," either too hot, too cold, or far too massive to support life.

But the new planet, which so far is only being called "c," is different.  It has an atmosphere, liquid water, a surface temperature estimated to range from 32 to 104 degrees Fahrenheit.  It is roughly five times as massive as the earth but, due to a larger diameter, has a surface gravity only1.6 times that the Earth's.   It's also much closer to its parent star, having a 'year' only 13 days long.  The view from the surface would be spectacular, with the planet's sun appearing in the sky some 20 times larger than does our moon.

"On the treasure map of the Universe, one would be tempted to mark this planet with an X", says report co-author Xavier Delfosse of Grenoble University. "Liquid water is critical to life as we know it.  Because of its temperature and relative proximity, this planet will most probably be a very important target of future space missions dedicated to the search for extraterrestrial life."

The team examined 100 different stars using the HARPS planet searcher at the European Southern Observatory in the Chilean Alps.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

yup
By Moishe on 4/25/2007 12:06:59 PM , Rating: 3
The interesting part will be when they finally focus some good instruments on this thing and see what kind of atmosphere, etc are there. It's exciting to find something so close to us in that form, but there is a very large chance that it'll end up being uninhabitable. Cannot wait to find out. I bet NASA or Japan or ESU or someone will send a probe out there... problem is, it will take forever to get there. Heck, it took the Voyagers 30 years to get to the edge or our solar system (about 100au).

At the rate voyager traveled so far (100au in 30 years) it would take ~390,000 years to get to this exoplanet. Not that it would require that to better study it... but even halving the distance is still a loooong time.




RE: yup
By Spivonious on 4/25/2007 12:38:12 PM , Rating: 2
Good point. I think we need to concentrate on a better propulsion system before we start looking at planets at unreachable distances.


RE: yup
By crtnkls on 4/25/2007 1:17:01 PM , Rating: 2
That's true, but there is something even more dangerous that needs to be solved first. If we get our spaceships traveling close to the speed of light even the most minute particle could tear a hole into the ship.

That's why bullets work. Small things moving fast. In this case its a small thing hitting a large thing that is moving fast.


RE: yup
By Moishe on 4/25/2007 1:22:59 PM , Rating: 2
I think actual human travel at that kind of distance is literally beyond our comprehension at this point. However a robot ship (a probe) could travel very fast and not need the human compatible part of the ship to weigh it down.

We could slap a very tough shield on it and make it nuke powered like the Voyagers so that it can withstand higher speeds and have adequate long term power.

Or for cheaper.... we could build a bigger and better space telescope that will bridge the distance without actually bridging the distance. Not sure how much gain can be had over current telescopes. I guess we can simply build them bigger and bigger.


RE: yup
By Ringold on 4/25/2007 1:31:17 PM , Rating: 2
With our current technology I see no point in even dreaming about sending anything other than radio waves to other stars.. I love Trek and all, but like you said, we can get massive amounts of science done from here for what it'd cost.

I think the idea behind some new telescopes is along the lines of the VLA; many of them working together over a vast distance in orbit. That's the TPF if I recall correctly.

I havent taken physics since high school, I'll admit, but considering how much has changed since I just took an astronomy course a few years ago I'd be surprised if huge advances couldn't be made.


RE: yup
By masher2 (blog) on 4/25/2007 1:51:19 PM , Rating: 4
There's actually a method we could cheaply send a probe to another planet with technology very little beyond our own. The bulk of the probe would be an extremely light solar sail a few dozens of atoms thick. Unfurled near the sun, it would rapidly accelerate to several percent of the speed of light.

The total instrumentation package would need to be a few grams or less, but still retain enough functionality to make the endeavor worthwhile. With current advances in nanotechnology and materials science, such construction might be practical in 20-30 years.


RE: yup
By PrezWeezy on 4/25/2007 2:42:28 PM , Rating: 2
http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/gadgets/beam-me-up-scot...

Thats a link to a group who created a teleporter with the ability to move something 18 inches through light. It's a very interesting thought that we may be able to move objects from here out to any inhabitable planet using the speed of light itself.


RE: yup
By masher2 (blog) on 4/25/2007 3:02:53 PM , Rating: 2
Unfortunately, quantum teleportation doesn't actually move matter (or even energy)...you're really only moving information...the quantum state of a particular system. And even that is limited to speed-of-light considerations.


RE: yup
By PrezWeezy on 4/25/2007 6:44:27 PM , Rating: 2
You are right...for now. But it's an advance. He said there was no point in thinking about it and I was simply stating that "Beam me up, Scotty" may exist in the forseable future. And if it did, we could certainly move from planet to planet much faster.


RE: yup
By Ramshambo on 4/26/2007 12:06:51 PM , Rating: 2
If you are able to transmit data at the speed of light, wouldn't that be something that could be used for interstellar communications? Or do radio waves already move that fast? Kinda interesting actually. And yeah I know, if it were to travel at the speed of light it would take 20 years to get there.


RE: yup
By Kuroyama on 4/26/2007 8:36:50 PM , Rating: 2
Radio waves, visible light, microwaves, X-rays, etc. are all forms of electromagnetic radiation and should all travel at the same speed through a vacuum.


RE: yup
By greenchasch on 4/25/2007 3:04:33 PM , Rating: 2
Interstellar space is pretty empty. If we ever do get something moving near the speed of light, there isn't much worry about hitting anything.


RE: yup
By Korvon on 4/25/2007 3:29:17 PM , Rating: 2
Then there is the odd little slow-down problem...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,3605,658...


RE: yup
By AzureKevin on 4/25/2007 3:51:16 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, for what it is, 20 light years isn't bad. The closest star(s) to our sun, Proxima Centauri (and Alpha Centauri, since they're a double star system), is about 4.2 light years away. Relatively speaking 20 light years isn't so bad!

This discovery is actually pretty promising; I would've never expected a human-habitable planet to be only 20 light years away. Sure we'll never be able to get there with our current technology, but who's to say what we'll have in a century or two.

The funny thing is, if we did send a spaceship to travel to this new planet right now, a more technologically advanced spaceship that we might be able to develop in only a few decades would probably be able to catch up to the old spaceship and go passed it.


RE: yup
By Hare on 4/25/2007 4:27:03 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The funny thing is, if we did send a spaceship to travel to this new planet right now, a more technologically advanced spaceship that we might be able to develop in only a few decades would probably be able to catch up to the old spaceship and go passed it.

Another thing to consider is that we would have a 20 year delay before hearing about the thing once it landed. Kind of like looking through a telescope and seeing stuff that has actually happened 20 years ago.


RE: yup
By exanimas on 4/25/2007 5:10:38 PM , Rating: 3
Ha, wouldn't it be ironic if that planet actually blew up 19 or so years ago and we sent something to look at it before seeing that?


By geddarkstorm on 4/25/2007 3:14:00 PM , Rating: 2
This planet orbits a red dwarf star so close that it only has a year of thirteen days and is fourteen times closer to its star than we are? Red dwarfs have many practical problems for habitability of any plants in the habital zone. For instance, most of the energy of a red dwarf is given off in the infrared, unlike our star which gives off in the visible. This would make it impossible for photosynthesis to proceed as infrared is far too low a wavelength.

Secondly, its known that red dwarfs can lose up to 40% of their brightness, or double their brightness in a massive solar flare due to sunspots. One blast of that beast and any life on a planet will be totally cooked; or one long period of sunspot activity and the planet is a frozen ice ball.

Thirdly, being that close to a star puts you very much so in the way of intense radiation, high level magnetic and solar winds, and could potential lock a planet's tidal system and day/night system so that one side is light while the other is dark, but causing massive temperature variations and instabilities all across the planet.

I really doubt a red dwarf planet could be suitable for life let alone human colonies.




By cochy on 4/25/2007 3:38:35 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
This would make it impossible for photosynthesis to proceed as infrared is far too low a wavelength.


Life develops its mechanisms for survival based upon it's surrounding ecosystems. Life evolves to adapt. Obviously plants here on Earth would make use of the abundant sunlight from the Sun to make energy. Why would you assume life some place else would need the same process? It obviously wouldn't. It would adapt to survive in it's unique ecosystem.


By geddarkstorm on 4/25/2007 7:08:44 PM , Rating: 2
I said photosynthesis would be impossible, not all forms of life. As, you need to know quantum mechanics, but infrared wavelenths are too long to interact with electrons, which absolutely necessary for electronic energy generation which is what photosynthesis is. Infrared interacts with the nucleii of atoms and affects such things as bond vibrations. stretches, and bends; but it does not effect electrons.

No matter how resilient people may have this misconception that life is, life is bound by the laws of nature--physics (including kinetics), and chemistry (thermal dynamics)--just the same. There are limits to all things.


By masher2 (blog) on 4/25/2007 9:28:02 PM , Rating: 3
This just isn't true, sorry. There are bacteria on earth that perform photosynthesis in the infrared spectrum, such as the Chloroflexi or some of the Rhodopseudomonas. All you need is enough energy to excite an electron to a higher orbital...you don't ionizing radiation.


By novacthall on 4/25/2007 5:03:39 PM , Rating: 2
At the bottom of the ocean on our own planet, in pitch black, at temperatures that border on freezing and boiling near geothermal vents, life is not only present, it's abundant.

Life is extremely resilient; don't be so quick to count it out.


By geddarkstorm on 4/25/2007 7:19:57 PM , Rating: 2
That is assuming that this planet has a rocky, molten core like our own and that it has liquid oceans covering over geothermal vents; notwithstanding the fact that the molecular basis for life formation is totally unproven and mysterious but having it happen at a geothermal vent is impossible due to the labial nature of RNA, DNA and proteins at high temperatures (let alone all the reducing agents like H2S and other acids/heavy metals that are common at such vents which rapidly destroy organic molecules that lack sophisticated enzymes to protect them). Hydrothermal vent living creatures on our own planet are creatures that appear elsewhere (before hand) which then adapt to hydrothermal vent life; and it is quite a difficult thing too.

However, this planet is unknown if it has a rocky, molten core; but given that its star, being a red dwarf, is very poor in heavy metals (a consequence of its slower and less efficient fusion, along with small size. Only larger, hotter stars can fuse hydrogen into metals, such as our own can do), it is unlikely that the same stellar dust that gave rise to that type of star could have given rise to a molten, rocky cored planet. Not impossible, but highly unlikely. And even then; without a deep sea, or highly thick atmosphere, or deep subteranean pockets (where life does not form in our planet; life has to get there then adapt, just like with hydrothermal vents), one solar flare and that planet will be gamma ray backed (if it isn't already just by being so close to a star).

Life is bound by the laws of nature, resilience is simply part of its complexity, but you have to get to that complexity first. Life is, however, also extremely fragile. It's not impossible (that is if it's possible for life to arise from planetary prebiotics anyways, and what prebiotics it would be possible to arise from are an aboslutely mystery), but extraordinarily unlikely in such a star system. But hey, weirder things have happened.


By RMTimeKill on 5/23/2007 2:58:52 PM , Rating: 2
This is all based on what we know about our planet and local solar system, which could be totally proven wrong in another solar system. Its like saying, yea, my Detroit Muscle V8 thunder is the only way to give life to my car, there is no other way! Then a Prius passes you... We know next to nothing of how life works, these laws and boundries you speak of are things set by men due to examples they have seen. There are still 1000s of life forms on our own planet we havent discovered so to claim these laws are absolute is absolutely asinine...


*sigh*
By Enoch2001 on 4/25/2007 10:12:24 PM , Rating: 2
Hate to be the downer in all this, but I have a few issues...

1. Any planet that presents a lesser quality of life than what Earth has to offer would be a miserable piece of crap to live on, IMHO. Especially having to go through what humankind would have to go through to get there. Which brings me to...

2. Distance in interstellar space travel. I don't think anyone here can comprehend just how far away 20 light years is. I mean...it's just unfathomable! Hell, even 1 light year is...friggin' far away!

Let's be realistic people: traveling at "light speed" is just not an option. The bullet-issue mentioned earlier is but just one of the problems that would spell devastation for any object traveling so far so fast... Has anyone seen what a small grain of dust has done to the space shuttle while in orbit? We're talking about trillions of miles farther with a lot more crap at a much more - incomprehensible - speed!

Traveling at the speed of light - and surviving - is a science *FICTION* pipe dream, ladies and gentlemen. I mean I believe in the power of the human species, but this ones a fantasy.

Now *FOLDING SPACE* on the other hand... ;-P




RE: *sigh*
By Rabbagast on 4/26/2007 5:42:17 AM , Rating: 3
Yeah. And 100 years ago they say you couldn't drive faster than 60 miles per hour or your head would explode


RE: *sigh*
By Enoch2001 on 4/28/2007 10:58:56 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
And 100 years ago they say you couldn't drive faster than 60 miles per hour or your head would explode...


No "they" didn't. Stop making crap up.


RE: *sigh*
By hubajube on 5/7/2007 4:22:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
No "they" didn't. Stop making crap up
Actually I think it was more like 30 mph and your head didn't explode.


RE: *sigh*
By Visual on 4/27/2007 5:32:04 AM , Rating: 2
20ly is nothing... compared to our galaxy's 100 000

and to really be realistic, traveling quite close to light speed is actually possible. with an engine capable of providing 1g acceleration/deceleration (switching in midpoint) for a long time, i.e. some nuclear photon propulsion, we can cross the whole galaxy in less than 25 years (traveler's time). isn't time dilation a great thing? yes, that would still be more than 100 000 years earth time, but so what?

in the case of going just 20ly from here, again with a comfortable 1g acceleration, we'd need as little as 6 years of proper-time travel. 3 years of 1g acceleration will take us to a velocity more than 0.995 c.

we don't even need to get that close to c for distances this small.... a constant 1g acceleration for just 320 days will get us to the more feasibly-sounding 0.7 c, which still is enough to reach this planet in under 30 years earth time. time dilation won't be that big, so the traveler's time will be around 22 years.

the bullet-issue you mentioned is indeed a show stopper with current tech, but be sure it will be solved. it might be some sort of armour or deflector shield or just picking a route relatively far from stars and matter concentrations... but there will be a solution.


RE: *sigh*
By Enoch2001 on 4/28/2007 11:18:47 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
20ly is nothing... compared to our galaxy's 100 000

and to really be realistic, traveling quite close to light speed is actually possible. with an engine capable of providing 1g acceleration/deceleration (switching in midpoint) for a long time, i.e. some nuclear photon propulsion, we can cross the whole galaxy in less than 25 years (traveler's time). isn't time dilation a great thing? yes, that would still be more than 100 000 years earth time, but so what?

in the case of going just 20ly from here, again with a comfortable 1g acceleration, we'd need as little as 6 years of proper-time travel. 3 years of 1g acceleration will take us to a velocity more than 0.995 c.

we don't even need to get that close to c for distances this small.... a constant 1g acceleration for just 320 days will get us to the more feasibly-sounding 0.7 c, which still is enough to reach this planet in under 30 years earth time. time dilation won't be that big, so the traveler's time will be around 22 years.

the bullet-issue you mentioned is indeed a show stopper with current tech, but be sure it will be solved. it might be some sort of armour or deflector shield or just picking a route relatively far from stars and matter concentrations... but there will be a solution.


Again, I stand by what I said. Traveling at light-speed will never happen, nor is it even an option even if the ability is obtained.

Why?

I'll tell you why: logic.

Why the hell would I spend 20 years on a friggin' space-ship, go to the nearest potentially habital planet discovered, do some research only to discover that it's no where near being a planet worth living on, come back to home base only to find that 40+ years of everyone else's lives has gone by? And that's to the NEAREST destination - you're talking about spending even more than 20 years living in a spaceship???

And no, time dilation is not a "great thing". It's a massive problem. You obviously have no concept of human mental health - I challenge anyone to live in a pre-determined set amount of space and not go mad over time... oh, and then accelerate everyone else's lives that they know and love a rip their very concept of reality away from them. Sure makes for good scientific research - I'll bet we'll have more than just a few psycho girlfriend astronauts trying to abduct their exes with duct tape...

If you people want to embrace the power of the human potential with sci-fi pipe dreams, then I stick by my tongue and cheek comment: fold space instead. You get around the whole time-travel paradox and make it worth our time.

If anything, human travel by light-speed is impractical. Perhaps some robotic missions, but folding space/worm holes/etc would be a much more practical method of traversing interstellar space...albeit that's as improbable as traveling at light speed.


Fascinating...
By Kougar on 4/26/2007 1:33:51 AM , Rating: 2
Imagine living there with a red sun that large in the sky... everything would be severely redshifted! I also heard that the planet does not rotate, so the dark side would be mostly uninhabitable due to frigid temps... perfect planet to have global warming on due to that!




RE: Fascinating...
By exanimas on 4/26/2007 7:14:47 AM , Rating: 2
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't a planet that doesn't rotate but revolves still get sun to almost all portions of the planet? It only takes 13 days for it to make one full revolution, so no one side would be in the dark for too long.


RE: Fascinating...
By Rabbagast on 4/26/2007 7:57:31 AM , Rating: 2
Nope
If it's tidally locked and uses 13 days on a full circle it will also rotate on its axis with a full rotation in 13 days. So it would always face the same side to the star, as the moon does earth.

Another funny thing is that the years will fly by but the day (or night) will never end...


RE: Fascinating...
By exanimas on 4/26/2007 12:49:01 PM , Rating: 2
Ahh I see. After I posted I started really thinking about what I said and figured out that my logic was flawed. Thanks for correcting me.


Not so fast
By Griswold on 4/25/2007 11:16:55 AM , Rating: 3
It is not known for certain whether or not this planet has an atmosphere or liquid water. These are only posibilities based on simulations according to Stéphane Udry, one of the discoverers of this planet.

It is also possible that the star and its planet are tidally locked, which makes liquid water almost impossible because one side of the planet will be boiling hot and the other side freezing cold.

The US James Webb Telescope or the european Corot-satellite could help here. Direct spectrum analysis is required to determine the factors needed for the possibility of supporting life - something the wobble-technique cant deliver.

Nonetheless a sensational discovery and certainly the best of its kind so far.




RE: Not so fast
By Scimitar on 4/25/2007 12:15:48 PM , Rating: 2
Great news!

I agree that COROT (in orbit now) should be aimed at this star. Also, the Keplar mission, which launches in 2 years, is another good one for follow up studies.

As far as other ground based instruments that could do follow up studies, the VLTI and Keck Interferometer seam ideally suited with their high angular resolution.

It's too bad SIM Planetquest was delayed, that would be a great instrument for detailed analysis.


RE: Not so fast
By Symmetriad on 4/26/2007 12:32:38 PM , Rating: 2
Even if it is tidally locked, the "twilight" zone separating the night and day sides would likely provide a more temperate environment, more conducive to the existence of liquid water and life. The problem with that, of course, is that the constant clashing of hot and cold air would continuously mire that temperate band with colossal storms.


NASA's Chance
By Ringold on 4/25/2007 1:47:06 PM , Rating: 2
If NASA had much sense (they dont) they'd cling to this news and take advantage of the opportunity to announce not just the restoration of funding to projects that've been slashed but push Congress for money to not just do what it's been doing but also to make projects like the TPF not just the exception but the rule -- and to get it fast-tracked. The mass media has clung to this story, and even non-geeks can appreciate the interesting possibility of life elsewhere. Stick the hot pokers to Congress's lazy ass while they still can.

Alas, I don't suspect they'd have the creativity to storm the public scene with hat in hand accusing Congress (correctly) of not funding projects that are related to the kind of science being done that found Gliese 581c but.. it'd be nice if they did, anyway.

This, btw, illustrates why "pay as you go" could be horrible for progress if it really became the law of the land; any increase in NASA funding would have to be involved with a discussion of either raising taxes or "Why spend money on space when there are poor people?" Fungus on other planets vs the poverty card... poverty will win every time. I know those arent the proper terms to phrase the debate in, but that'll be the sound bites politicians will use; language invoking imagery of poor downtrodden people starving in the ghetto's while rich scientists send billion dollar boondoggles in to space to look for extra-solar fungus.

But this news made my week, anyway. Back when I took astronomy just a few years ago, the professor suggested a habitable planet around a red-dwarf was a huge long shot, and now.. lo and behold.




RE: NASA's Chance
By novacthall on 4/25/2007 5:06:50 PM , Rating: 2
That's the nice thing about longshots as it pertains to chances on a cosmic scale. To quote Lloyd from Dumb and Dumber: "So you're tellin' me there's a chance?"


RE: NASA's Chance
By bubbacub616 on 4/26/2007 5:19:13 PM , Rating: 2
"no ussr to beat therefore no point spending money on it" I believe is the logic used to cut NASA's spending over the years. The only thing that will get NASA cash is if China start doing some serious space exploration (and all the associated PR).


Someone please explain
By cochy on 4/25/2007 3:32:16 PM , Rating: 2
Read about this story yesterday and today it's made CNN as well. What I'm interested to know is, what method they used to detect this planet? Normally astronomers infer the existence of a planet by observing woobles in the parent star. This motion is caused by the gravity of the planet(s). They can also estimate the mass of the planet this way, more mass more gravity more wooble. Here's where my lack of understand comes in. How can scientist make observations concerning surface temperature, liquid water and even orbital position. After all they aren't observing the planet's light directly. Couldn't the star's wooble be caused by let's say, a more massive planet orbiting further out? The science behind these planet findings is cool but seemingly imprecise. However this news story is detailing very precise information. Can someone explain how they reached these conclusions?




RE: Someone please explain
By lewisc on 4/25/2007 5:00:23 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Normally astronomers infer the existence of a planet by observing woobles


Don't talk too soon, we don't yet know if the planet is inhabited, much less by these 'woobles' you speak of.


RE: Someone please explain
By cochy on 4/25/2007 6:00:23 PM , Rating: 2
lol i meant wobbles.


Damn hes fast
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 4/25/2007 11:07:51 AM , Rating: 2
I just got the email from reuters dumped into my email box an hour ago........ your not human :P




RE: Damn hes fast
By Murst on 4/25/2007 1:02:32 PM , Rating: 2
This was on BBC News last evening (or very early morning if you're in Europe)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6589157....


stupid question
By noxipoo on 4/26/2007 1:41:10 PM , Rating: 2
why would planet be too big to support life? isn't bigger the better?




RE: stupid question
By thatguy39 on 4/26/2007 9:54:42 PM , Rating: 2
two reasons...

if a planet is very large with not enough mass, it doesnt have a iron core which means no way to protect against radiation from the sun. if a planet has too much mass, like 2.0 or above Earth gravity, our bodies couldn't support such weight 24/7... we would all have serious health problems in very little time.

2.0 gravity would be great to train in for short spurts though.


13 Day Year
By exanimas on 4/25/2007 5:16:17 PM , Rating: 2
So birthday parties for all every 2 weeks? When can I move there?




Is this true?
By theapparition on 4/26/2007 12:23:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It has an atmosphere, liquid water

From everything I've read, it has the potential for liquid water.




Well, thank the lords of Khobol
By Webgod on 4/27/2007 10:19:56 AM , Rating: 2
Plot a course and spin up the FTL drive.




On the bright side!
By AlmostExAMD on 4/27/2007 10:07:02 PM , Rating: 2
Well if a year only lasts 13 days,On the plus side of things you certainly would live to a ripe old age.
365 earth days divide by 13 is 28, Gives you 28 planet x years for one of ours,Times that by average life expectancy of 78= 2190 years of age, Would make for an interesting conversation! lol




It's not habitable by humans
By BladeVenom on 4/25/07, Rating: -1
RE: It's not habitable by humans
By masher2 (blog) on 4/25/2007 9:31:08 PM , Rating: 2
> "You'd weigh 5 times as much..."

No, because the diameter is larger as well. Its gravity is approximately 1.6g...a 180 lb man walking on the surface would feel like he was carrying a 100 lb backpack.


RE: It's not habitable by humans
By exdeath on 4/26/2007 11:09:54 AM , Rating: 2
That would be awesome. Go live there for 5 years just doing your normal routine of eating, sleeping, and browsing the web all day, come back to Earth, and be super buff just from getting up to take a piss for 5 years.


RE: It's not habitable by humans
By skyyspam on 4/28/2007 1:58:13 AM , Rating: 2
You'd probably be super old-looking, what with a sagging face and/or boobs if you're a girl. Continuous 1.6x gravity would blow.


"You can bet that Sony built a long-term business plan about being successful in Japan and that business plan is crumbling." -- Peter Moore, 24 hours before his Microsoft resignation














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki