TRAPPIST-1 now has seven planets. (Possible life?)

[_Augustus_]

3 hours ago, magnemoe said:

Not so bad, you are likely to get cloud cover over the equator part, if orbit is not totally circular you would also get wobble who would move the sun forward and back making light on more of the planet. 
You would want plenty of water and an pretty thick atmosphere, with an dry planet its an huge risk the water end up on the backside. 

Many of the planets have orbital eccentricities between 0.05 and 0.1. There would be periodic sunrises and sunsets near the terminator.

5 hours ago, oguz said:

I wonder about how stabil their orbits are. They have gravity of between 0.5earth to 1.0earth while distance between two neighbor planets falls less than 600.000 km when their orbits' closest aproach happens. Very strong gravity, very short orbits, very weak Star.. could one planet throw other one to the some different orbit? AFAIK distance between Earth-Moon is something like 384.000 km

 

 

They are really close

The planets seem to have orbital resonances keeping them stable.

[Frozen_Heart]

Reddit just had a great naming idea. (no it isn't planet mcplanetface)

https://www.reddit.com/r/space/comments/5vtzpi/neil_degrasse_tyson_the_7_newly_discovered/de53u0h/?sh=da0b654a&st=IZJDGOTA

[oguz]

I think we should let the first astronaut who will actually land on those planets to name them

[Spaceception]

13 hours ago, katateochi said:

How long would it take to get there? I've seen varied estimates (all in the thousands of years). One article used New Horizon as the example of our fastest space craft and put its speed at 32,000mph and then estimated ~320,000 years, but I think it would be much longer than that, more like 820,000 years.

Also, these guesstimates are working of Trappist-1 being 39-40 light years away and calculating based on that distance. but I assume that's the direct (straight line) distance, and doesn't factor in orbital motion.  Which leads me to the next question; how do you transfer between solar systems?  Is it just like a scaled up version of planetary transfers, but taking the centre of the galaxy as the central point and then doing hohmann-ish transfers between solar systems based on that? If so that could add much much more time to the journey, never mind waiting for a transfer window.  

and of course this all leads into wondering, what would the deltaV requirements be for such a mission? Lets say if we just wanted to send something small, like a Mk1-2 command pod and nothing else, how much dV would that take? I dread to think! 

Starshot is supposed to go at 20% the speed of light, so it would take ~200 years to get there.

Antimatter, if we could travel at 40% the speed of light, would take ~80-100 years.

[munlander1]

49 minutes ago, oguz said:

I think we should let the first astronaut who will actually land on those planets to name them

We would not have a name for it for a very long time.

[Spaceception]

 

[Spaceception]

The entire system is roughly ~17,951,744 km wide.

That's if planet h orbits ~8,975,872 km away. Which is insane, that's a little over 23 Earth-Moon distance from the star to planet h, with 134,672 km of room.

For reference, if Mars and Earth were as close as possible, which is 54.6 million kilometers (Which has never happened in history), the entire system could fit between them, with about ~36,650,000 million km of room

Edited February 24, 2017 by Spaceception

[Spaceception]

I wrote a short story that may get turned into a novel series in a few months or so

Spoiler

On the outskirts of a spiral galaxy, lies a young star, just on the line of a star, and failed star.

And around that star, orbits seven unique planets.

Hundreds of millions of years ago, a disk of gas and dust collapsed into an ultracool star, where a planetary disk settled into a flattened shape. Dust collided and formed clumps, while proto-planets began to form.

These planets collided with one another, sometimes getting destroyed, orbiting far away from the star, after millions of years, they began to migrate, and settle into more stable orbits.

The innermost world orbited extremely closely, and had an orbital period of one in a half days, it became a hellish world, with lakes of lava on its solar point, and a thin atmosphere constantly being stripped away by the stellar winds. It did not rotate, and there was no magnetic field due to its core being so small.

The second planet out also orbited extremely closely and had a slightly thicker atmosphere. There was a strong magnetic field and brilliant aurora constantly brightened the surface. It was also tidally locked and orbited in almost two in a half days. Its temperature was just below boiling temperature, and there was a small ice cap on the farside of the planet. The sky looked orange from the surface, and the other planets could easily be seen in the dim red light of the star.

The third planet away from the star was remarkable, it orbited its star in just over four days, had a reasonable magnetic field, and boasted a thick atmosphere. The daytime solar point was a blistering desert that had a raging hurricane, while the anti-solar point had a massive ice cap that reached the terminator. But on the terminator, there was complex marine life, thriving under the shallow seas that created a ring of water. From space, the planet had a vast array of colors, the dirty white clouds in the hurricane, the rusty desert underneath, the dark blue water stretching around the planet, and the ice cap on the nightside, where the only light it got were from the outer planets and massive aurora that shined in the otherwise black night.

The fourth planet out was the most intriguing. It orbited its star in less than six in a half days and had a large magnetic field that protected a thick atmosphere, while life of all sorts on the planet evolved and adapted.

Much of the solar point was covered in water and was dotted with islands. Most of the land was at the terminator, and life grew and flourished. There were aquatic animals, land animals, and a wide array of plant life that looked dark blue to the eye. But perhaps what made the planet most interesting was the amphibious lifeforms that were exploring, and gaining consciousness.

The fifth planet out was a cooler, oceanic world, completely covered in some form of water, deep seas that went across the entire dayside, and a massive ice cap on the nighttime side. Marine life was complex, and all sorts of plants and animals grew and evolved under the ocean. The thick atmosphere was rich in oxygen and water vapor, protected by a magnetic field. The planet orbited in over nine days and was tidally locked.

The sixth planet away was an icy oceanic planet, with a strong magnetic field, and thick atmosphere that transported heat to the farside, melting all the water on the planet, and strong currents keeping it from freezing. There were slushy ice caps, with warm water around the equator. From space, the planet looked a dim seafoam green. Whirling clouds all over the planet, with frequent storms. And basic unicellular life lived all around the planet. The planet had a strong magnetic field and orbited its star in less than twelve in a half days.

The seventh and final planet in the system was an icy world, just a bit smaller than the third planet. It had a very weak magnetic field, and small pockets of subsurface water dotted under the surface, however, life did not live here, at least not right now. Long, thin canyons streaked across the entire surface, formed by tidal effects, these same tidal effects helped smooth the surface of large impacts. And it held a thin atmosphere, almost too thin to be considered one. It orbited in just over twenty days, and from the dim surface, you could see all other planets in the daytime sky.

 

On the fourth planet away from the star, lies a lifeform like no other, it stands tall and evolved on the land, over thousands of years, this species of life grew to learn how to make fire, and turn stones into tools, they were on their way to making a great empire.

But it wasn’t meant to be.

On one terrible day, an Asteroid struck the planet, wiping out much of the life, including the young species that could’ve done great things, one day, some day.

All wasn’t lost, as this was how the other planets gained the precious seed that is life.

Over tens of thousands of years, life returned and populated the planet once again. And over a hundred thousand years after the species went extinct, a new lifeform emerged. It came from the water and adapted quickly. It gained consciousness, and asked questions, learned how to make fire, learned how to make tools, and before long, it learned how to turn metal into something useful.

Thousands of years went by, as empires rose and fell, and technology progressed. Wars were waged, wars were won, this species had many ups and downs, and finally, they developed steam.

Over two hundred years past before they had the capability to travel to space, and once they did, they expanded quickly into the unknown.

 

 

[Spaceception]

I know Hubble could find atmospheres on these planets, but could it determine the dominate gas in those atmospheres? Or is that something only the JWST could do?

Edited February 24, 2017 by Spaceception

[oguz]

8 hours ago, munlander1 said:

We would not have a name for it for a very long time.

Trappist-1 codes are enough though. Imagine that your grand-grand-grand-grand-grand..... father left earth 200.000 years ago, after thousands of generations you finally arrive to the Trappist-1 System, you made very very hard maneuvras and land on the best planet in those. You actually discovered liquid water seas and athmosphere.. But you cannot name it bcs some guy in his chair already named it!  it would feel suck lol

[munlander1]

@oguz Neil Armstrong is not disappointed someone else named the moon. I am sure if someone landed on Titan, Mars, or the laythe analog they would not want to rename it. (I have been hearing things since Wednesday I think it's sleep deprivation and I just woke up from a nap. I can't think of the name of Jupiter's moon right now. It hurts my brain.)

[ProtoJeb21]

Okay, a lot of stuff for my 900th post.

Looking at a density and composition chart posted on the TRAPPIST-1 website - which somehow doesn't work on my computer - I have came to a realization: Stellar metallicity has NO influence on what the planets will be like. Take a look at the K2-3 system. The star is metal-poor, yet has a planet made of 90% iron. But the Trappist-1 system has planets on both sides of the scales while being just a tad more metal rich than Sol. The twin-like desert planets of 1b (Theros) and 1c (Auxo) are the two extremes in the system. Theros is the same density as Mars, which would imply a composition made of about 20% water. But with an atmosphere that could be similar to Venus' and with a temperature of 400*K, liquid water on Theros is close to impossible. So what options are left? How about no core at all! Theros is so close to Trappist-1 that tidal forces from the host star could've prevented iron and silicates from differentiating, created a conglomerate interior where the two types of materials are mixed together. While Theros is the first coreless planet, Auxo is an Iron Planet. It's unusually high density for an Earth-sized planet points to a composition taken up by 50% iron and other metals. The planets' densities also imply about how much water they have. 1d (Thallo) also has a large iron core, taking up about 30% of its volume, hinting that water is not a dominant part of this world's composition. 1f and 1g have similar densities and are evidence for worlds covered in oceans. However, 1f (Irene) is about 1/4 water, while 1g (Carphos) is probably like a refrigerated Kamino - kinda cool with a thick ocean, but no thick enough where there's no reachable sea floor. Trappist-1e is the only world who has an internal composition nearly exactly like that of Earth.

I've been hard at work revamping and re-doing the Trappist-1 system in KSP. All that original work...all for naught . Anyways, I've been creating custom height maps in Space Engine and using PQSMods and Kittopia to create color and normal maps. I have used NASA's renditions of the planets for major inspiration, as I'm trying to make those designs with Kittopia. But I'm also adding a few extra features - like forests on Thallo, because of its insanely high Earth Similarity Index of 0.90. Feast your eyes!

On the subject of Thallo, I'm wondering if it could hold an atmosphere. It is the least massive planet in the system (1h/Cheimon may be less massive), and many have argued that the planets likely don't have atmospheres. But what irks me is that Theros and Auxo are CONFIRMED to have atmospheres. On Star Wars Day 2016 (May 4th), Hubble was able to take spectroscopic observations of Trappist-1 as Theros and Auxo both transited at the same time. It discovered that both worlds have compact, terrestrial atmospheres, not huge hydrogen/helium envelopes. Theros having an atmosphere proves that the other planets - even Thallo - have some as well. Why? Because Theros has probably the least atmosphere-friendly environment in the whole system. It has the second-lowest gravitational pull (as far as we know) and is exposed to much more UV light and X-Rays than the other planets. If it can hold onto an atmosphere thick enough to be detected from Earth, than the other planets are likely to have some as well.

I have to agree with what @peadar1987 says about the planets having magnetic fields. Since they are so close to each other and the star, tidal friction would heat up their cores (if they have any) and provide a sloshing motion inside each world, generating a magnetosphere. The three likeliest planets to have such magnetic fields are Auxo, Thallo, and Eiar, as they have the largest cores in the system. Being tidally locked, they rotate every 2.422, 4.05, and 6.1 days, which may be fast enough to generate some convective motion without extra tidal heating. I wonder whether or not a strong magnetosphere would protect Thallo or make it undergo a huge(ish) greenhouse effect, similar to what happened with Venus and its magnetosphere. But it could be possible to tell with very faint radio waves coming from the planets as a sign of charged particles interacting with the fields.

[oguz]

1 hour ago, munlander1 said:

@oguz Neil Armstrong is not disappointed someone else named the moon. I am sure if someone landed on Titan, Mars, or the laythe analog they would not want to rename it. (I have been hearing things since Wednesday I think it's sleep deprivation and I just woke up from a nap. I can't think of the name of Jupiter's moon right now. It hurts my brain.)

It took few days to arrive there, not half a million years with thousands of generations  I still think that it would be more fair to let the guy who will land on there to name them in first place. Heck, he would get independence from Earth anyway, who could stop him 40 light years away  

[Mitchz95]

The system is less than a billion years old, isn't it? That's not a lot of time for life to evolve.

[kerbiloid]

3 hours ago, Mitchz95 said:

The system is less than a billion years old, isn't it? That's not a lot of time for life to evolve.

What's fun to evolve near a puny red dwarf? To be an anemic algae? No, thanks.

They must search better and find us a planet with ~600 km radius, normal gravity, oxygen atmo and water hydro.
How to name it, we know ourselves.

[Spaceception]

On 2/23/2017 at 4:44 PM, max_creative said:

Trappist 1g has about 1g!  

And the 06?

Well it is the 6th planet in the system...

[daniel l.]

Actually i find it relieving that TRAPPIST is too young to have life. Anyone who has read Aurora will understand my fears. I'm personally hoping to find a set of planets that we can terraform. In fact, We should do what we did in Arkwright and send a seeder ship equipped with terraforming equipment.

[ProtoJeb21]

https://exoplanets.nasa.gov/trappist1/

So....much....Trappist-1....stuff!

[munlander1]

That's really cool

[Spaceception]

1 hour ago, ProtoJeb21 said:

https://exoplanets.nasa.gov/trappist1/

So....much....Trappist-1....stuff!

So is this the update page?

1 hour ago, daniel l. said:

Actually i find it relieving that TRAPPIST is too young to have life. Anyone who has read Aurora will understand my fears. I'm personally hoping to find a set of planets that we can terraform. In fact, We should do what we did in Arkwright and send a seeder ship equipped with terraforming equipment.

Earth's life may have formed life around 400 million years after it formed, and this star has a minimum age of 500 million years, plus, since it's much smaller, the system likely formed pretty quickly, which means any life that could've evolved much faster than in the solar system.

[YNM]

I understand everyone says "fingers cross" but a few problems :

- The central star have only a small amount of UV light. Photosensitive systems (esp. those that can break water) will have problems on that. (definitely can be wrong here.)

- The planets are very likely to be tidal locked - atmo will slowly leak out.

- The central star may be susceptible to tantrums. If one happens in the right time and direction, goodbye atmo.

 

Edited February 25, 2017 by YNM

[ProtoJeb21]

4 minutes ago, YNM said:

I understand everyone says "fingers cross" but a few problems :

- The central star have only a small amount of UV light. Photosensitive systems (esp. those that can break water) will have problems on that. (definitely can be wrong here.)

- The planets are very likely to be tidal locked - atmo will slowly leak out.

- The central star may be susceptible to tantrums. If one happens in the right time and direction, goodbye atmo.

 

-Keep in mind there are different pigments than chlorophyll. Some bacteria under the surface here in New England have adapted to have red or black pigments to absorb the feeble amounts of light that get through.

-These planets are tidally locked, but orbit fast enough to have rather quick rotations. 

-Trappist-1 does emit x-rays, but look at Theros. It has the least atmosphere friendly environment, yet Hubble detected a terrestrial atmosphere around it. So the other planets are likely to have some as well. Also, Auxo has a confirmed atmosphere as well.

[YNM]

9 minutes ago, ProtoJeb21 said:

-Keep in mind there are different pigments than chlorophyll. Some bacteria under the surface here in New England have adapted to have red or black pigments to absorb the feeble amounts of light that get through.

-These planets are tidally locked, but orbit fast enough to have rather quick rotations. 

-Trappist-1 does emit x-rays, but look at Theros. It has the least atmosphere friendly environment, yet Hubble detected a terrestrial atmosphere around it. So the other planets are likely to have some as well. Also, Auxo has a confirmed atmosphere as well.

- Noted, thanks.

- I see. But that would raise question regarding atmospheric YORP effect and it's sort of only works if you have an atmo. No atmo ? Hello, moon.

- They still have trillions of year to live. You have no idea.

Edited February 25, 2017 by YNM

[RuBisCO]

Problem: Such a dim Red Dwarfs gives off most of it light as near infrared radiation. You can go to any only "black body calculator" put the surface temperature of TRAPPIST-1 in (2550 K) and get out 1136 nm light is its spectral peak. Compared to the sun which gives off 502 nm light as its spectral peak (bluish-green, but looks yellow-white to us going through atmosphere and because emission from blue to red add up to white). Another way of looking at it is dividing the total luminosity of TRAPPIST-1 by its visible luminosity (0.000525 / 0.00000373) =  140, this means that for a human standing on a world that gets the same amount of total light energy flux as here on the earth (a theoretical point between TRAPPIST-1d and TRAPPIST-1e) would only see 1/140 as much light. Summary: these would be very dim worlds to us, full day light there would be the same a twilight to us and even more reddish.

Inhabitants of the TRAPPIST-1 system would likely see into the IR, red light would likely be the furthest in visible light they could see or they would likely perceive all the colors we do simply as their hues of "blue" and the other colors they would perceive would be in the NIR.

Biochemically it would not be too hard for life to detect NIR, terrestrial life here on earth didn't probably because water absorbs NIR really well so aquatic life can't utilize it and because visible light is plentiful and stronger so why bother?

 

Obviously that means aquatic life on TRAPPIST-1 is not going to see very well beyond 950 nm, this may hamper the chances there land life would see in NIR. Here on earth the mantis shrimps see 16 colors, many of which far into the UV, but it also sees further into the NIR, but only up to 750 nm. So either the land life of TRAPPIST system make do with seeing what they can off red light with big eyes that have little color distinction (like nocturnal life here on earth, or like the ancestors of mammals hence why most mammals only see 2 colors, red and blue and yellow sensitive rod cells only give them perception of light intensity rather than color), or they have evolved the ability to see deeper into the NIR unlike their aquatic ancestors.  

The Bigger problem is plants: Can photosynthesis utilize NIR? The short answer is that in theory yes, but the efficiency of which would likely be much poorer. Here on earth water cracking, oxygen producing photosynthesis is what makes complex animal-intelligent life possible. Cracking water requires ~143 kj/mol to get 1/2 O2 and 2 H+ and 2 e- this converts to any photon of light below 837 nm has enough energy to crack water. In theory though it is perfectly possible to couple two photons of light of weaker energies to make up the difference (1674 nm), the problem is storing and adding up that photonic energy efficiently. We have done it artificially, but apparently no life on earth has evolved such a thing either because it is too hard biochemically or because visible light is plentiful enough or both. If using only the visible light an ecosystem in the TRAPPIST system would be 1/140th the size of our ecosystem per light input. If using NIR light as well the ecosystem potential is as high as earth life assuming the same photosynthetic efficiency, even a tenth the efficiency of earth life it would still be advantages to use NIR light compared to 0.7% efficiency of using only visible light from TRAPPIST-1. Again aquatic plants are not going to utilize NIR unless they are living in less than ~10 cm of water depth! Only land life would be most prone to evolve NIR photosynthesis.      

 

Edited February 26, 2017 by RuBisCO

[Shpaget]

41 minutes ago, RuBisCO said:

but apparently no life on earth has evolved such a thing either because it is too hard biochemically or because visible light is plentiful enough or both.

Not necessarily.
All we know is that we have found no evidence that such a trait has appeared. The thing with evolution is that it selects towards optimal performance currently available (roughly best procreation and survival rate to effort involved ratio).

If the ability to utilize near IR appeared at one point in time, it might as well have been lotteried out of the gene pool since a more efficient process was available. With the ability and (more importantly) opportunity to perform photosynthesis of visible light, there is no important drive to maintain the NIR PS capability. SInce our Sun did not experience a period of significantly cooler light and reduced visible light emission in favor of NIR, there was no need for plants to develop that sort of photosynthesis.

On a planet where visible light is scarce, organisms may just as well find a way to utilize IR. The process may be significantly different than what we call photosynthesis.

Edited February 25, 2017 by Shpaget