At NASA, researchers are looking for evidence of life on other planets. The planets are being monitored by a satellite observatory called Kepler, which is keeping track of which planets are best for harboring life. Astronomers are hoping to find “Goldilocks” planets, which have the perfect (neither too hot nor too cold) conditions for life. In the fall, a satellite will leave for Mars, while there are plans for the next mission to be to Europa, Titan, or Enceladus. Since humanity will lose Earth as its home sometime in the future, a new location is needed. While over 500 planets have been discovered, none of them are inhabitable. American astronomers announced last year that they had discovered a Goldilocks planet with water on it in a different system, but the astronomers who discovered the system claimed there was no actual planet. NASA has also tried to develop a system that will find planets that pass in front of a star by keeping track of the blocked light. This method is currently being used, but so far, no planets have been found.
This article is important because if a new planet is found that can support life, it can be used in the future as a resource for the population of Earth. It could become a new home or a way of finding new natural resources that can be used for the people on Earth. It is possible that this planet could reveal new discoveries that contradict previously held scientific assumptions.
This article was very interesting to read. I enjoyed hearing about how the amount of light a planet blocks can be used to find the planet in question. I did feel that some details were unnecessary and confusing, such as the sections describing different planets that were uninhabitable. It would be interesting to find more information about these discoveries and plans in the future, because this could affect society in a profound way if we find a new source of water and life for people on Earth.
Overbye, Dennis. "Gazing Afar for Other Earths, and Other Beings." NY Times. NY Times, 30 Jan. 2011. Web. 1 Feb. 2011.
.
1 comment:
I feel that Andrew did a good job fully reviewing his article. He gave a strong point of view, which made it possible for the reader to understand what side Andrew was coming from. Also, I felt that he made good use of statistics in his review.
Andrew didn’t thoroughly explain his article, which made his review and point of view useless considering that the reader couldn’t understand the content of the article. Also, he should have mentioned how past missions went, whether succeeding or failing.
I found it interesting that scientists call planets with perfect living conditions “Goldilocks Planets.”
Post a Comment