Print 30 comment(s) - last by RandallMoore.. on May 14 at 2:15 PM

NASA scientists, using the Spitzer Space Telescope, announced the discovery of the hottest extrasolar planet found to date

The NASA Spitzer Space Telescope recently discovered gas planet HD 149026b, the hottest planet ever discovered. University of Central Florida astronomers, led by Joseph Harrington, found that the planet is 3,700F, a temperature higher than many low-mass stars.

The planet is a “hot Jupiter,” meaning that it is a large gas giant that rotates closely around its star. HD 149026b is located in constellation Hercules, up to 279 light-years away from Earth. While similar in size to Saturn, it has a core that is 70 to 90 times the mass of Earth, and the planet is able to complete a full revolution around its star in 2.9 days.

The telescope was able to estimate the temperature on the planet by monitoring the decrease of infrared after the planet dips around its star. It is likely that HD 149026b does not spread its heat around the planet. “The day side is very hot, and the night side is probably much colder,” said Harrington.

"This planet is off the temperature scale that we expect for planets," said Drake Deming, co-author for the paper, and a researcher at the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center.

Along with being the hottest planet ever discovered, the planet does not reflect a high amount of starlight, instead absorbing it – meaning HD 149026b is also the blackest planet known.

Scientists are trying to create a climate map of a “typical” gas giant. The recent discovery will help scientists learn about dense, gas giants that are not located in Earth's solar system.

The findings are available in the May 9 edition of Nature.

Comments     Threshold

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

RE: I would be
By HrilL on 5/10/2007 6:29:57 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah I had corrected that before... And he is actually still wrong look at #5 definition.
"5.the time in which any planet completes a revolution round the sun."

Yeah I understood the sarcasm but its not called for when he is just as wrong as the first guy. Says any planets revolution around the sun not just the earths. People do commonly convert those years to "Earth Years" to make it easier to understand and picture in your mind as a time frame. But it only takes any of our 8 planets 1 year to go around the sun. And He said
2,852-years-old on that planet...
He is wrong but only because that definition says "sun" If it said "star" then he would be correct. Maybe it should say star there and not sun.

RE: I would be
By osalcido on 5/10/2007 6:56:59 PM , Rating: 2
the sun is a star...

and year is a generic label given to the amount of time it takes a planet to go around its host star once. Usually qualifiers are given for non-Earth planets (e.g. Jovian year, Venusian year, Martian Year)

RE: I would be
By johnadams on 5/11/2007 12:11:00 PM , Rating: 3
This is good actually. I appreciate the amount of intellectual discussion and getting facts right. Gives me a good reason to read user comments on DailyTech.

RE: I would be
By DeltaZero on 5/12/2007 7:19:24 AM , Rating: 2
+1 LOL))

"So if you want to save the planet, feel free to drive your Hummer. Just avoid the drive thru line at McDonalds." -- Michael Asher

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki