back to article TRAPPIST-1's planets are quiet. Quiet as the grave, in fact

Boiled dry or extra-terrestrial snowballs, it turns out that the multi exoplanets orbiting the star dubbed TRAPPIST-1 are almost certainly inhospitable to life. NASA's original announcement held three of the seven planets in the system could be within a habitable zone, but alas there's a killjoy. Enter Eric Wolf, of the …

  1. AustinTX

    We won't be living on alien planets.

    We have GOT

    to stop this unquestioned narrative

    about colonizing Mars, searching for alien planets in the Goldilocks Zone

    and all the rest of that nonsense.

    None of them will have all of our basic needs as Earth provides, and at best we will have to live in domes or caves under the surface.

    Landing in a gravity well is risky and expensive. Launching is even more expensive. There won't be any mining down there for anything but local needs. In fact, planet-dwellers are all-but trapped.

    Terra-forming would take thousands of years, and humans just aren't capable of this kind of financial and logistical commitment.

    But, we can build perfect homes almost anywhere in the form of orbital colonies. In orbit, where the easy-to reach material is in the first place. In fact, out of the tailings left over from sifting more valuable components out of comets, asteroids and the smaller moons.

    Sintered rock powder makes a tough, concrete-like substance. The heat source comes from a reflective mirror. It doesn't even need to be big; a mirror a few feet across can turn sand to glass here on earth. We build up the football or cylinder-shaped habitat like it's inside a gargantuan 3D printer.

    We spin it, and establish the ecology of our choice inside, and feed it with power collected from the host star through panels floating nearby.

    We'll likely use the Moon for material first, then Mars's moons, then the asteroids. There is material for millions of habitats, each with the population of a county. Before long, the vast majority of Humanity will exist in colonies orbiting the Sun, population exceeding trillions of people.

    ANY system that has loose floating material, and a star that is hot or bright enough, without being too irregular, will do.

    The galaxy could be teeming with established intelligent life already, perhaps mostly around red dwarfs as they are the most plentiful and live many times longer than Sun-like stars.

    1. Michael Hoffmann Silver badge

      Re: We won't be living on alien planets.

      Cue "The Expanse" theme music... and I don't mean that snarky. You sound like a fan, just like me! :)

      But as geologic history (and the books/show) demonstrate, sooner or later you get a big rock or rocks in the head and that's the end of it all.

      Will those trillions, born and growing up in a fraction of Earth gravity still be human after a few generations?

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Will those [...] still be human after a few generations?

        Well, does it matter? Admittedly it's been rather more than a few generations, but we're not "still Australopithecine".

      2. AustinTX

        Re: We won't be living on alien planets.

        "Will those trillions, born and growing up in a fraction of Earth gravity still be human after a few generations?"

        I most certainly did not describe life in orbital colonies as being like "The Expanse's" "Belters". An orbital colony can be spun to simulate Earth-normal gravity, or even more if you want your kids to grow up even more muscular.

        1. Foob
          Happy

          Re: We won't be living on alien planets.

          I've just finished reading 'SevenEves' by Neal Stephenson. That extrapolates what happens to humans after 5000 years of not living on the surface.

          Superb book.

    2. Andy E

      Re: We won't be living on alien planets.

      While I don't disagree with you, I do wonder how orbital colonies shield the colonists from the suns radiation. Here on earth we have the earths magnetic field which does a nice job of shielding us most of the time. How do you envisage we replicate the magnetic field or do we use something else?

      Just wondering.....

      1. AustinTX

        Re: We won't be living on alien planets.

        "While I don't disagree with you, I do wonder how orbital colonies shield the colonists from the suns radiation."

        Orbital colonies will shield from radiation about as well as the nearest mountain. A concrete-like shell 30-40 feet thick, an additional layer of soil and water features, millions of cubic feet of air above that. Also, colonies can be placed at the most convenient distance from the sun to maximize cooling vs energy collection vs ionizing radiation. They'll be clustered behind any natural protection if necessary.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Boffin

      Re: We won't be living on alien planets.

      No-one (or no-one who has thought about the problem very hard at all) is looking for expolanets with an aim to living there: Trappist-1 is 40ly away, and we are not going there any time soon and almost certainly not going there ever.

      People are looking for habitable exoplanets because it's the first step to looking for exoplanets which actually have life on them, and detecting life anywhere else but Earth is about the coolest thing I can imagine doing. (Yes, we should be doing it in plausible places in the Solar system too, and we are, of course).

      1. Pirate Dave Silver badge
        Pirate

        Re: We won't be living on alien planets.

        "detecting life anywhere else but Earth is about the coolest thing I can imagine doing."

        I would dare say detecting life beyond Earth would be the most profound discovery in all of human history. Imagine the ramifications. It would mean we aren't unique, that we aren't just a happy accident on a spec of dust in a relatively uninteresting galaxy. It would show that, in the right environment, the ragged determination of life to "live" that we see here on Earth, is universal in scope. Get the right mix of chemicals and energy, and life will eventually happen. And it would throw several of the world's religions into a chaos from which some of them might never recover.

        And that's all just in the first week after discovery.

      2. AustinTX

        Re: We won't be living on alien planets.

        "People are looking for habitable exoplanets because it's the first step to looking for exoplanets which actually have life on them"

        This particular article doesn't mention colonizing other worlds, but pretty much all of them do. And most people read on through without realizing that living on alien worlds is just a sci-fi trope.

        Put another way, we should stop searching the forest for comfortable caves to live in, since there is enough wood to build a city.

    4. oldcoder

      Re: We won't be living on alien planets.

      I believe sintered rock tends to be inflexible and brittle.

      Fine if you only want a little compression...

      Not good under tension though.

      That makes it inappropriate to use for colony use EXCEPT for interior small construction.

      1. Pascal Monett Silver badge

        I believe the structure would be made of metal, enclosing spaces filled with rock for the protection it offers from harmful radiation. There would be no tension to speak of on the rock, although there could be a modicum of compression as the station rotates.

      2. AustinTX
        Facepalm

        Re: We won't be living on alien planets.

        "I believe sintered rock tends to be inflexible and brittle."

        I'm not aware that all "sintered rock" must have the same quality, nor that it is uniformly inadequate. Different chemistry leads to different physical properties. Think of the colony wall as an eggshell proportionately expanded to a sphere several miles across. Even if it's stronger against compression than tension, it's still up to either task. It'll be more like a ceramic. Additionally, it can be reinforced with fiberglass or carbon fiber threads mixed in, and formed in corrugated or spongy form as appropriate for flexibility and other characteristics.

    5. Patrician

      Re: We won't be living on alien planets.

      I really can't understand the down votes; your post is, logically, the best way for us to colonise the solar system.

      1. AustinTX
        Facepalm

        Re: We won't be living on alien planets.

        "I really can't understand the down votes; your post is, logically, the best way for us to colonise the solar system."

        Yeah; I guess they all want to live on Mars and breed pale, frail cave goblins for children. :/

  2. Winkypop Silver badge
    Joke

    Ahah! Not so fast Mr Scientist

    Every fool knoa that "climate models" and "climate change" are a commie-pinko-Darwinian-LGBTI-Planned Parenthood conspiracy theory!

    1. tony2heads

      Re: Ahah! Not so fast Mr Scientist

      Yes indeed, I can think of several fools who "know" that climate change is a conspiracy.

      1. TheTick

        Re: Ahah! Not so fast Mr Scientist

        "Yes indeed, I can think of several fools who "know" that climate change is a conspiracy."

        Conspiracy or not (I suspect probably not initially) it's the perfect excuse for certain types of people and politicians to do what they always want to do: tax us and tell us what we can and cannot do all the time.

        So they big it up as much as possible so that they can get their bossyness (sp?) fix in.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Ahah! Not so fast Mr Scientist

      You missed the Bavarian Illuminati.

      (Incidentally next Thursday is our annual barbecue at the usual location to celebrate the most successful year in our entire history.)

    3. Pen-y-gors
      Headmaster

      Re: Ahah! Not so fast Mr Scientist

      "Every fool knoa that"

      I think young Molesworth would prefer the spelling "As any fule kno"

  3. Your alien overlord - fear me

    Earth was covered in ice at one point (or probably more), didn't do us any harm so other 'ice' planets are probably just going through a phase. By the time we get there, they'll have warmed up.

    1. Rich 11

      Except that our Snowball Earth phase tied in with orbital variation and stellar evolution. TRAPPIST-1's evolution is unlikely to take it out of it's current state, and its planets are very likely stuck with low eccentricities due to their strong orbital resonance.

      1. Toni the terrible Bronze badge
        Devil

        Trappist

        So by the time we get there we will be able to re-organise the planets orbits to suit us, after all Deus ex mankind

    2. Pedigree-Pete
      Alien

      Hoth

      anyone fancy living there where the some of the natives smell worse on the inside than the considerable honk they give off on the outside? PP

  4. John Smith 19 Gold badge
    Unhappy

    "tidal locking" seems like a pretty big problem if you want to live there.

    The spinning of the planet seems to be quite important if you want the atmosphere to be pulled round fast enough that it can't be frozen out on the permanent night side.

    I think it's pretty clear no one will be visiting any of these places without an uncrewed probe first.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Meh

      Re: "tidal locking" seems like a pretty big problem if you want to live there.

      I think it's pretty clear no one will be visiting any of these places without an uncrewed probe first.

      Or at all. They are 40 light years away and Star Trek isn't a reality TV series.

      1. hplasm
        Paris Hilton

        Re: "tidal locking" seems like a pretty big problem if you want to live there.

        "Star Trek isn't a reality TV series."

        Reaity TV series aren't reality...

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Joke

        Re: "tidal locking" seems like a pretty big problem if you want to live there.

        > Or at all. They are 40 light years away and Star Trek isn't a reality TV series.

        But just imagine: if Star Trek tech were a reality, not only could we go there but they would speak English as well.

        1. Pen-y-gors

          Re: "tidal locking" seems like a pretty big problem if you want to live there.

          "But just imagine: if Star Trek tech were a reality, not only could we go there but they would speak English as well."

          Don't jest, there is logic. They speak English because they are descended from the original British 'Leaver' settlers sent from Earth centuries earlier using slow, non-warp drives. Some of them have evolved/mutated in various strange ways over the years, but thankfully the language stayed pure. Bit like USians still using a lot of 16th Century English forms, like 'gotten'

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Meh

            Re: "tidal locking" seems like a pretty big problem if you want to live there.

            "But just imagine: if Star Trek tech were a reality, not only could we go there but they would speak English as well."

            The wackiest part of Star Trek are the aliens themselves. A fruit fly shares well over half its genome with humans but isn't a bit like a person. Yet, whilst the aliens in Star Trek share no evolutionary history at all with humans, and may not even have a DNA-type genome, they are physically identical to human beings except for a few extra bumps on the head. Compared to the likelihood of that happening, finding that they can speak English too must be a trifling matter.

          2. Toni the terrible Bronze badge

            Re: "tidal locking" seems like a pretty big problem if you want to live there.

            Leaving in the 19 century utilising Cavorite?

  5. hplasm
    Unhappy

    After '000s of years of research-

    -and decades of travel, humans land on a planet in some star's Goldilocks zone...

    and are promptly eaten by three Starbears.

    1. lglethal Silver badge
      Joke

      Re: After '000s of years of research-

      Damn. And all we were looking for was a good Starbucks...

      1. hplasm
        Happy

        Re: After '000s of years of research-

        "...And all we were looking for was a good Starbucks..."

        a good Starbucks?

        Rarer than inhabitable worlds... keep looking.

        1. Michael H.F. Wilkinson Silver badge
          Alien

          Starbuck?

          My commanding officer swore blind the planet was in imminent danger of being eaten by a giant, mutant stargoat!

          Now where's that B-ark?

          ...

          Doffs hat (black fedora today) to the late, great Douglas Adams

    2. DropBear
      Joke

      Re: After '000s of years of research-

      It's their own damn fault. Nobody forced them to put on _red_ shirts that day...

  6. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Has anyone considered that the computer models might just be wrong - especially when applied to planets other than earth with different star conditions.

    1. Rich 11

      There could well be an important contributory factor we've missed, but the underlying physics is the same there as here. All we can do is put forward tentative results based upon what knowledge we do have; not publishing because of the risk of unknown unknowns isn't going to get us anywhere with anything, ever.

      And if the underlying physics isn't the same, that would be by far the greater discovery.

  7. Faux Science Slayer

    More Magic than Goldilocks orbit distance...

    Earth has 310 million cubic miles of liquid oceans, forty miles of atmosphere, two million cubic miles of Thorium and Uranium providing internal heat and elemental atoms/molecules. Earth has a massive Moon providing tides and tectonic movements and a magnetosphere blocking solar wind and particles.

    Earth has a one in a million combination of life supporting conditions.

    1. Roj Blake Silver badge

      Re: More Magic than Goldilocks orbit distance...

      Other sets of conditions that are good for life (but not as we know it) might exist - icy gas giant moons for example.

      And even if only one in a million worlds can support life, there are many billions of planets in the galaxy

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: More Magic than Goldilocks orbit distance...

        It's life, Jim

        But not as we know it

        Not as we know it

        Not as we know it

        It's life, Jim

        But not as we know it

        Not as we know it, Captain

        1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

          Re: More Magic than Goldilocks orbit distance...

          "It's life, Jim"

          Ok, I upvoted you for making me smile, but I really wanted to downvote you for reminding of that bloody song"

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Earth has a one in a million combination of life supporting conditions.

      The chance of anything $HAPPENING, are a million to one, they said...

      1. cray74

        Re: Earth has a one in a million combination of life supporting conditions.

        The chance of anything $HAPPENING, are a million to one, they said...

        Oh, I think it was better than that. You know one of the engineers even won an award for Norway's fjords?

    3. Uncle Slacky Silver badge
      Stop

      Re: More Magic than Goldilocks orbit distance...

      But million-to-one chances happen nine times out of ten...(nods to Pterry)

    4. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      one in a million combination

      Even if the odds were a billion to one, there would still be trillions of planets with those conditions. Space is a lot bigger than most people can possibly concieve.

      1. DJSpuddyLizard

        Re: one in a million combination

        Space is a lot bigger than most people can possibly concieve.

        My head hurts even contemplating the Local Group.

      2. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

        Re: one in a million combination

        "Space is a lot bigger than most people can possibly concieve."

        Yep. Look very closely at a "black spot" of sky which apparently has no stars, and many, many galaxies are there.

        1. Toni the terrible Bronze badge

          Re: one in a million combination

          Yes there are loads of galaxies as the universe is not only infinite but flat, with the possibility of many many other flat univeses a tad too far away to confirm (after all infinity is infinity) - I understand that the world however is an oblate spheroid.

    5. jmch Silver badge

      Re: More Magic than Goldilocks orbit distance...

      "Earth has a one in a million combination of life supporting conditions."

      It could be a billion trillion to one, but the number of planets out there is still much greater than that. It is almost certain that, somewhere around the universe, there are thousands if not millions of planets that have magnetosphere with liquid iron core, rocky surface, liquid water, oxygen atmosphere, large moon and approximate earth size, density, orbit and spin.

      The real problem is that the very vast number of planets that make this almost certain makes it extremely unlikely that we can ever find these planets. It's looking for a needle in a million haystacks. Of course if we relax the requirements a bit from 'quasi-earth' to 'just about habitable', there could be many planets that we manage to find fitting the bill. Even then, we simply do not have the capability to get anywhere near any of these planets. Currently we don't even have a theoretical way of interstellar travel in a human lifetime.

      So, not wanting to be overly pessimistic, of course it's important to discover as much as we can about alternative boltholes. But for the moment, space colonies with artificial gravity or caves and tunnels dug on the moon, andgetting resources from asteroids and other moons, seems to be the best next step.

    6. Avatar of They
      Thumb Up

      Re: More Magic than Goldilocks orbit distance...

      Conditions for life as we know might have died out. But what do we know, until we fly over it and have a look. They could metabolise methane, like insects.

      According to Space.com our galaxy has a 100 billion stars (upto 400 million possible). Even at 1 in a million that would be massive amount of planets.

      Or put it another way. 0.1% which would be.... A million planets out there with life? If mathematically we look at such small and infintessimal odds, say 0.01% chance. That means there could be 100,000 other planets with life. Which puts us into Star Wars territory. If 10% of them, so 0.001% achieve more than pond life then 10000 other civilisation exist for us to get wiped out by.

      At 0.0001% is still a thousand. More than Star Trek?

    7. hplasm
      Unhappy

      Re: More Magic than Goldilocks orbit distance...

      "Earth has a one in a million combination of life supporting conditions."

      You call this life...? Don't talk to me about life...

    8. Captain DaFt

      Re: More Magic than Goldilocks orbit distance...

      "Earth has a one in a million combination of life supporting conditions."

      Life Supporting conditions for Earth life, true.

      But who says life elsewhere plays by the same, exact rules?

      1. Toni the terrible Bronze badge
        Boffin

        Re: More Magic than Goldilocks orbit distance...

        Evolution, is the only rule ignoring clever watchmakers, and all life will follow it. It is possible that in similar conditions somewhat similar life will arise - in an earth type envionment this may be creatures with two legs two arms and a head (with at least two eyes) but a lot else would be different.

    9. John Smith 19 Gold badge

      "Earth has a one in a million combination of life supporting conditions."

      The fact we can now spot extra solar planets and can count (sort of) the number of stars and galaxies in the sky means we are in a position (just) to start to put some actual numbers on the Drake Equation.

      The crude way would be take the number of planets found around a particular class of star and divide by our estimate of how many of that type of star we can see, keeping in mind it's easier to find gas giants than anything even reasonably (EG 3-5x bigger) Earth sized.

      We now know for a fact that the Solar System is not unique in the galaxy for having planets (and even more bizarrely that old SF trope of a planet drifting through space without a sun is not that uncommon) so the real question remains the Fermi Paradox. If the odds on bet is there is a planet for most suns, where is the alien comm chatter from a million billion inhabited worlds?

      1. Scroticus Canis
        Alien

        Re: "where is the alien comm chatter"

        From the primitives using EM radiation it's still on its way here. The rest are using subspace (natch) which is currently beyond our ken.

        1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

          Re: "where is the alien comm chatter"

          "which is currently beyond our ken."

          Yer right! I just asked our Ken an' ee was like, subspace? Wots that then?

      2. Toni the terrible Bronze badge
        Devil

        Re: "Earth has a one in a million combination of life supporting conditions."

        Fermi predators reduce comms traffic - it may be a dark forest out there so don't send messages

    10. Patrician

      Re: More Magic than Goldilocks orbit distance...

      "Earth has a one in a million combination of life supporting conditions."

      In just our galaxy one in a million leaves an awful lot of planets; and none of the conditions/elements that led to the formation of the Earth are unique to the solar system.

  8. Mage Silver badge
    Alien

    Tidal locked

    Means little chance of advanced life anyway.

    The climate modelling is interesting though the results are not surprising.

  9. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    We can't get climate modelling right on this planet - every model seems to end in firey death.

    I'll take these results with an ocean of salt.

  10. Steve Graham

    It's life, Jim, but not as we know it.

    Look, nobody knows what the necessary conditions for life are. We have one example on one planet, and the planet is astonishingly suited to the life upon it.

    Well, of course it is! That's evolution.

    I know you can make all kinds of arguments about thermodynamics or genetic information storage or whatever, but until we get at least one more data point it's just speculation.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: It's life, Jim, but not as we know it.

      No-one knows exactly, but we need some way of weeding out places not to look so we have a chance of finding somewhere where there might be life, because there are a shit-load of exoplanets. If we restrict ourselves to the kind of life we know about then, for instance, avoiding planets which are red-hot or hotter is a good start, and looking for planets where there might be liquid water is another, and so on.

      1. Pen-y-gors

        Re: It's life, Jim, but not as we know it.

        @tfb

        a chance of finding somewhere where there might be life

        There are a lot of places on this planet where most people would reckon there's no chance of finding life, but still they do. Hydrothermal vents in the deep ocean, with no sunlight? Atacama desert? High Andean mountains? Antarctic lakes?

  11. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    I see more people are still clinging to the fairy tale of Darwinian evolution. Well consider this - if evolution created the first cell from basic chemistry and physics, why can't we replicate it in the lab ? It should be easy. It isn't (even with our best intelligent design tools). Error correcting DNA code by chance ? Fat chance. Its a design feature.

    1. Swarthy
      WTF?

      Intelligent(?!) Design

      If you are claiming Intelligent Design, then I challenge you to explain the human knee. Our knees are a significant point of failure, in part because they do not have the blood flow they need to heal properly, and also their structure cannot take the abuse of our strides. They are a dirty hack that works "well enough" to get us to a reproductive age, and a little beyond, to pass our genes. No kind and loving God would have ever put them into production.

      Add to that a spine that can barely tolerate the stress of being upright, and if you hold to "Design" than you must drop "Intelligent".

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Happy

        Re: Intelligent(?!) Design

        If you are claiming Intelligent Design, then I challenge you to explain who designed your $DEITY$.

        1. Swarthy

          Re: Intelligent(?!) Design

          Deities all the way up?

          And turtles all the way down.

          /breaks into song

          Here I am

          Stuck in the middle with you.

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Intelligent(?!) Design

          If he could explain it, then there would be proof, which would deny faith, and without faith, $DEITY$ would cease to exist.

          Now, I'm going to watch out for zebras.

      2. Zog_but_not_the_first
        Thumb Up

        Re: Intelligent(?!) Design

        Brilliant. I was using just this argument this morning while moaning about my sore knee!

      3. Pirate Dave Silver badge
        Pirate

        Re: Intelligent(?!) Design

        "Our knees are a significant point of failure... ...No kind and loving God would have ever put them into production."

        And don't forget the prostate. A kind and loving God would have put that on the outside and made it easily replaceable. (said as I'm staring down the barrel of turning 50 and having to start worrying about such things).

        1. Pen-y-gors

          Re: Intelligent(?!) Design

          ...and don't forget that whole insane way of producing new humans. Fun, yes. Practical, no.

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Intelligent(?!) Design

          "And don't forget the prostate. A kind and loving God would have put that on the outside and made it easily replaceable."

          Intelligent designers may think a deity designed the prostate, but it was biochemists who came up with tamulosin. So biochemists are clearly more intelligent than their intelligent designer, as is the surgeon who replaced my wife's hip joint.

        3. AustinTX
          Happy

          Re: Intelligent(?!) Design

          "And don't forget the prostate. A kind and loving God would have put that on the outside and made it easily replaceable."

          Intelligent Design placed your prostate just on the other side of your rectal wall so your buddy can give it a nice massage every fortnight or so... :D

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Boffin

      Well, given a few hundred million years and a lab the size of a planet, we probably can.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      AC - if you should happen to claim to be a Christian Fundamentalist (or some other theist fundamentalist) that decries evolution (and please ignore the rest of this if you are not) then please consider this; God is, by definition, ineffable, and limited creatures such as you and I cannot possibly comprehend the limits of God's abilities. To try to claim that God is not capable of doing anything God durned well pleases is, I believe, hubris of the first water in the Christian faith (and several others), and so there is absolutely nothing to prevent God from creating a universe in which evolution is possible, or, indeed, actually happens. To claim otherwise, to try to put bounds upon God, is, frankly, sacrilegous and heretical - therefore, you are no Christian/other Abrahamic faith of choice, QED.

      I am deeply religious myself - but I do not and COULD not belong to any faith that dares to try to put limits upon what God could create, because to do so is simply unscientific, and science demonstrably works. And I love science because for me, it is a joy to try to get to know god's creation that little bit better with every new thing that I learn. Go in peace.

    4. Patrician

      Your question shows that you have very little knowledge of evolutionary science and I'd advise you start taking a basic course as soon as possible.

  12. Toltec

    "It should be easy."

    Why? Please explain your reasoning.

    1. Little Mouse

      "It should be easy."

      It is easy.

      All you need is a lab the size of the universe, more matter, and combinations thereof, than you can possibly envisage. Oh, and all the environmental conditions that have ever existed, ever, for several billion years.

      Stir, compress, explode, freeze, burn, boil, smash together, etc on and on and on.

      Chances are you'll get there in the end.

  13. creepy gecko
    WTF?

    @AC ...the fairy tale of Darwinian evolution

    "I see more people are still clinging to the fairy tale of Darwinian evolution."

    Was that typed by a moron or a troll?

    Or a moronic troll? I can't tell the difference.

    1. hplasm

      Re: @AC ...the fairy tale of Darwinian evolution

      "Was that typed by a moron or a troll?"

      Different Fairy Tale Believer. Take your pick.

    2. AIBailey

      Re: @AC ...the fairy tale of Darwinian evolution

      Probably a moron that evolved into a troll. I'm pretty sure no $DEITY would intelligently design something like that.

      1. Rich 11

        Re: @AC ...the fairy tale of Darwinian evolution

        I'm pretty sure no $DEITY would intelligently design something like that.

        Or at least not one that you'd want to worship. If it deliberately chose to give us a shared entranceway to the oesophagus and trachea it can fuck right off.

      2. This post has been deleted by its author

  14. andy gibson

    Meanwhile, on TRAPPIST-1e

    A scientist is composing a similar report on the newly discovered Sol system and its multitude of planets......

  15. teknopaul

    Looking at this all wrong...

    Trying to find planets in the goldilocks zone is not working out. Soo take an ice planet and push it in to the goldilocks zone. Bingo Earth 2

    Eric Wolf has clearly never read Feersum Endjinn.

    He's presuming the planets currently around TRAPPIST have been there for a very long time. I see no reason to discount the 7 planet sized alien space vehicles theory.

  16. Anonymous Coward
    Angel

    We don't even know what we're looking for

    Because we do not have the foggiest idea about what life on another system might be.

    So far, we are limited to searching for a system that could possibly have liquid water.

    There is currently only one known planet, and only one known planetary system, in the entire Universe, that can harbor liquid water: that planet is Earth, and that planetary system is our Solar System.

    With a statistical sample of one, out of an unknown, but assumed to be very large, number of planetary systems, we cannot construct even a crude probability distribution for systems that can possibly have liquid water.

    Liquid water is just a basic requirement. It's unclear what we should be looking for after we find a system with liquid water. Not being tidal locked appears to be a requirement.

    So, we don't really know what we're looking for, and we have no clue about the probability of finding this thing that we don't really know what it might be.

    But, some of us are certain that we're going to find aliens Real Soon Now.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: We don't even know what we're looking for

      Which is why it will be a nice surprise, or confirm our suspicions, in either case. So, you are right, let's keep looking! :P

      Sure, Earth is a beautiful place with those great big teats of the Himalayas, but the cosmos is vast, and NOT finding life would be a bigger surprise still. So, again, you are so right on the money here; let's keep looking! Saying some made up, super-duper, "hi, I live in the sky," male, douche-god only provided for Earth is the fantasy. Still, if that gets you through your sad day, so be it. Just try not to blow anybody up while trying make your weak, unsubstantial, unsubstantiatable point. [sic]

      I like knowing things. Religion is about explaining away "hard concepts" as being also a made up thing. Bullshit is what it smells like. All religions are useless, guilt-inducing, money cults designed to keep child-molesters from doing what they do, or in the case of my old cult Catholicism; place them in authority. And keeping people from learning about anything except more bullshit. Science is about finding out what is and isn't real. It's self-correcting, and does not make assumptions that it is "all knowing" or "all seeing," like an asshole would do. :P :P

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Stop

        Re: We don't even know what we're looking for

        > I like knowing things.

        Good. The first thing you should know, then, is when to stop wasting time searching for aliens.

        This fairy tale that we will find aliens somewhere across the Universe has become a religion, in and of itself. It is not based on any scientific facts, or observations, and it is based exclusively on personal beliefs.

        1. Toni the terrible Bronze badge
          Unhappy

          Re: We don't even know what we're looking for

          Yes it is just possible we are a abbreation and life normally doesn't get this far in complexity. There may be no sentient aliens anywhere, no truly sentient creatures even here - e.g., Trump.

  17. Charlie van Becelaere
    Pint

    Trappists

    at least there should be some good ale, no?

    1. Simon Harris

      Re: Trappists

      Obviously Wolf's research is flawed with the assumption of a water based ecosystem when he should have modelled it with 9% ABV beer.

  18. duhmb

    now with new and improved....

    Of course we have stem cell injections for knees now you know

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like