New Reply

Structure of the Milky Way?

 
Share Thread
May20-12, 03:20 AM   #1
 

Structure of the Milky Way?


I and a few friends thought about the oort cloud...
If it has 2 light years in lenght, thats half way to Alpha Centauri...
What would stop our near neighbor Alpha Centauri to have its own oort cloud...
And if this is wright couldn't the galaxy be filled with dwarf planets, asteroids and comets rather than empty space between the stars as usual sci-fi movies like to show?
PhysOrg.com astronomy news on PhysOrg.com

>> Three centaurs follow Uranus through the solar system
>> Final curtain for Europe's deep-space telescope
>> Hubble spots a very bright contortionist
May20-12, 03:47 AM   #2
 
Yes the galaxy is filled with asteroids, comets and dwarf planets, but that doesn't mean that you would bump into one celestial body after another when passing through it. The distances between these objects are so enormous that you would have to carefully aim in order to hit something. The sci-fi movies actually got it right. The space is mostly empty.
May20-12, 11:55 AM   #3
 
Could we actually Colonize some of those wild planets... if they are big enaugh?
i mean i think they can get to the size of earth or biogger, no?
May20-12, 02:34 PM   #4
 
Recognitions:
Gold Membership Gold Member

Structure of the Milky Way?


^ Spell check.

It's not very easy to answer speculative questions. The Kepler satellite is searching for Earth-sized planets, so if we were to ever colonize a planet, it would more than likely be a planet similarly sized to earth (obviously).
May21-12, 12:40 AM   #5
 
Recognitions:
Science Advisor Science Advisor
Quote by Dark Universe View Post
Could we actually Colonize some of those wild planets... if they are big enaugh?
i mean i think they can get to the size of earth or biogger, no?
Do you mean a rogue planet? As in a planet-sized object not anywhere near a star? They'd be far, far too cold to colonize.
May21-12, 09:35 AM   #6
 
Quote by Chalnoth View Post
Do you mean a rogue planet? As in a planet-sized object not anywhere near a star? They'd be far, far too cold to colonize.
Oke...
Cold let it be, we could have hitting systems inside huge metropolises covered by some kind a dome but not made of glass as it is too fragile...
or we could make a strong enaugh glass so we could also se the galaxy trough it...
eeeeeh... this kind a colonization is more for fun... imagine this small scene: in the darkness of space in a huge cluster of planets, Dwarf and partially borken planets, dwarf planets, comets and asteroids surrounded by a shinning blue nebula but thin enaugh to se the galaxy trough the glass domes of our colonies... wouldn't that be nice even spectacular if i say so...
man this chat is more because i'm REAAAAAAALLY bored
May21-12, 04:52 PM   #7
 
Recognitions:
Gold Membership Gold Member
Quote by Dark Universe View Post
Oke...
Cold let it be, we could have hitting systems inside huge metropolises covered by some kind a dome but not made of glass as it is too fragile...
or we could make a strong enaugh glass so we could also se the galaxy trough it...
eeeeeh... this kind a colonization is more for fun... imagine this small scene: in the darkness of space in a huge cluster of planets, Dwarf and partially borken planets, dwarf planets, comets and asteroids surrounded by a shinning blue nebula but thin enaugh to se the galaxy trough the glass domes of our colonies... wouldn't that be nice even spectacular if i say so...
man this chat is more because i'm REAAAAAAALLY bored
Did you have a specific question?
May21-12, 05:53 PM   #8
 
Recognitions:
Science Advisor Science Advisor
Quote by Dark Universe View Post
Oke...
Cold let it be, we could have hitting systems inside huge metropolises covered by some kind a dome but not made of glass as it is too fragile...
or we could make a strong enaugh glass so we could also se the galaxy trough it...
It's more a problem of having the energy to actually do anything.

Maybe if we solve the problem of getting nuclear fusion reactors off the ground, maybe it will be possible. But why bother with that when there are likely to be billions of candidate planets in our galaxy within the habitable zones of stars?
May21-12, 08:09 PM   #9
 
Recognitions:
Gold Membership Gold Member
Quote by Chalnoth View Post
It's more a problem of having the energy to actually do anything.

Maybe if we solve the problem of getting nuclear fusion reactors off the ground, maybe it will be possible. But why bother with that when there are likely to be billions of candidate planets in our galaxy within the habitable zones of stars?
True, but the majority of those candidates are planets found in the solar system of a red dwarf, which means that the habitable zone of these planets is required to be a lot closer than the earth is to our sun, which opens up complications like harmful radiation.

Then again, once we get to the point where we can colonize other planets, I doubt we would want to be too picky :)
May21-12, 09:07 PM   #10
 
Recognitions:
Science Advisor Science Advisor
Quote by AnTiFreeze3 View Post
True, but the majority of those candidates are planets found in the solar system of a red dwarf, which means that the habitable zone of these planets is required to be a lot closer than the earth is to our sun, which opens up complications like harmful radiation.

Then again, once we get to the point where we can colonize other planets, I doubt we would want to be too picky :)
Well, that's more a feature of the fact that it is technically more difficult to detect planets which have orbits closer to one year here on Earth than it is to detect these closer-in planets. I doubt that there is any real bias towards red dwarfs where habitable-zone planets are concerned.

Of course, most stars out there are red dwarfs, but there are one heck of a lot of yellow dwarfs around as well.
May24-12, 01:19 PM   #11
 
Quote by Chalnoth View Post
It's more a problem of having the energy to actually do anything.

Maybe if we solve the problem of getting nuclear fusion reactors off the ground, maybe it will be possible. But why bother with that when there are likely to be billions of candidate planets in our galaxy within the habitable zones of stars?
For posterity man!
To show the galaxy how kool can we get

I agree with you, Chalnoth,
But couldn't we colonize a few planets that orbit around Blue giant stars???
If there are any solid ones... or...
May24-12, 05:53 PM   #12
 
Recognitions:
Science Advisor Science Advisor
Quote by Dark Universe View Post
For posterity man!
To show the galaxy how kool can we get

I agree with you, Chalnoth,
But couldn't we colonize a few planets that orbit around Blue giant stars???
If there are any solid ones... or...
Well, blue giants tend to have rather short lifetimes, and when they die they explode in massive supernovas. So they would be rather hazardous places to live.

Yellow dwarfs, like our own sun, are pretty much ideal. Much smaller, and they are quite volatile when young and the habitable zone is in very close to the star, making it unlikely that they have genuinely habitable planets. Much larger, and the lifetime of the star shortens significantly, often with many rather violent episodes before the final supernova. Yellow dwarf stars, though, last quite a long time (billions of years) and are relatively quiescent.
May25-12, 08:01 AM   #13
 
Quote by Chalnoth View Post
Well, blue giants tend to have rather short lifetimes, and when they die they explode in massive supernovas. So they would be rather hazardous places to live.
Posterity, remember let's harvest some adrenaline...
Till the time comes when we could even control a supernova or just live trough the exploding giant we are most surely going to search for planets orbiting yellow dwarf and red dwarf stars...

But hey... a small imaginary jump in the future jus may feed our will to explore space and get us a bit a fun!

(In the future we would have colonized planets that have close orbits to black holes...)
May25-12, 09:51 AM   #14
 
one thing that i don't understand... Why are there more red dwarfs than any other type of stars?
May25-12, 02:08 PM   #15
 
Quote by Dark Universe View Post
one thing that i don't understand... Why are there more red dwarfs than any other type of stars?
because they spend a very long time as red dwarfs, whereas giant stars don't last very long
May25-12, 02:33 PM   #16
 
Recognitions:
Gold Membership Gold Member
Quote by Dark Universe View Post
one thing that i don't understand... Why are there more red dwarfs than any other type of stars?
Quote by SHISHKABOB View Post
because they spend a very long time as red dwarfs, whereas giant stars don't last very long
That plus red dwarfs are very easily made as they require much less material than larger more massive stars. When stars form from a collapsing gas cloud you typically have many more small stars created than larger stars.
May25-12, 02:58 PM   #17
 
Recognitions:
Gold Membership Gold Member
Quote by Dark Universe View Post
Posterity, remember let's harvest some adrenaline...
Till the time comes when we could even control a supernova or just live trough the exploding giant we are most surely going to search for planets orbiting yellow dwarf and red dwarf stars...

But hey... a small imaginary jump in the future jus may feed our will to explore space and get us a bit a fun!

(In the future we would have colonized planets that have close orbits to black holes...)
I don't understand your reasoning at all. Isn't the idea of colonizing other planets far-fetched enough for now? Let alone colonizing unfavorable and unforgiving planets near black holes?

It's good to be excited about these things, but you need to stay slightly realistic. If the only reason to inhabit certain areas of the universe is just for the hell of it, or just to show that we can, then I think we would need to question the intelligence of the people authorizing those missions.
New Reply

Similar discussions for: Structure of the Milky Way?
Thread Forum Replies
SSSI (structure-soil-structure interaction) General Engineering 4
Panel Structure vs. Solid Rod Structure Mechanical Engineering 2
term structure isomorphic to the usual model/structure of number theory Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics 2
Symplectic structure vs. metric structure General Physics 2
subtle background structure in deep astronomy photos; CSL-1 cosmic string gravitational lens in Capodimonte Deep Field; Millennium Simulation of evolving cosmic structure; AstroDeep group; Murray mesh; www.Flickr.com evolving cosmic structure; As General Physics 1