Space Oddity: The Search for a New Earth

“Space, the final frontier. These are the voyages of the starship Enterprise, its five year mission to explore strange new worlds, seek out new life and new civilizations…”

You’ve probably already guessed that I am a giant nerd, but I can’t help that I was raised on Star Trek. My dad proposed to my mom while watching an episode and spoke Klingon on their first date (tip: Don’t eat Korean food with a Trekkie). From Star Trek I transitioned to Star Wars, then Doctor Who and Torchwood. Basically, I love space. So reading about the Kepler Mission, a mission NASA undertook searching for a “new Earth,” interested

me. (If it interests you too, I’d point you to the Kepler Mission’s website, but apparently the government doesn't consider that important enough to maintain during the shutdown.)

However it got me thinking, why does finding an “Earth-like” planet consume the human mind? Defining or finding “Earth-like” planets should not be scientists’ primary focus, and not only is it unlikely that they will find an accessible, sustainable planet, we don’t have a need for a “new-Earth” right now. Instead, exploring space through missions such as the Kepler mission, learning as much about our vast universe as possible should consume their research.

So scientists are searching for terrestrial, “Earth-like” planets in stars’ “habitable zones” where liquid water likely exists on any planets they find there. That’s great right? Sure, but what about the “non-habitable” planets? Are we as humans only interested in planets that can house species similar to ourselves? Species could exist out there that don’t need water to survive and we could be missing out on some amazing discoveries and first contact with a new planet because we’re selfishly ignoring planets that aren’t carbon copies of our own or dismissing non-terrestrial worlds. Thousands of undiscovered and unexplored planets exist out there- what could we be missing?

There’s a good chance that scientists are looking in the wrong places for habitable planets anyway. The Kepler mission searches in stars’ “habitable zones,” but according to a recent study there might not be any habitable planets orbiting within those zones. M-dwarf stars are the most common stars in the galaxy and are also significantly cooler (up to 3000 degrees Kelvin cooler)

than G2 type stars, the type of star our Sun is.

Photo: http://www.eso.org/public/.) Of course scientists are searching for planets with liquid water in the “habitable zone,” but, there’s a good chance that any planets in the “habitable zone” of M-dwarf stars won’t in fact, be habitable, at least by humans. A study published in the journal Astronomy and Astrophysics has found “Earth-like” planets are not likely to be found found orbiting a M-dwarf star in its “habitable zone” because of their small magnetospheres. A smaller magnetosphere means that a planet’s atmosphere is likely to be exposed to harmful stellar wind, so even if a planet does have liquid water, no human would be able to live there. It’s more likely that an “Earth-like,” terrestrial planet would be orbiting outside the “habitable zone.” (Vidotto, Jardine, Morin, Donati, Lang and Russell, 557.) Of course, not all stars are M-dwarfs, but since these stars are the most common in the universe, if scientists really want to find an “Earth-like” planet, it would be in their best interests to maybe expand their horizons a bit.

Scientists looking for atmospheres like our own might be hindering our search for new life and new planets as well. A study in Planetary and Space Science found that carbon-dioxide rich atmospheres can support life. There is no significant temperature increase nor is there a greenhouse effect on these planets. (Newbauer, Leitner, Firneis, and Hizenberger, 84.) Just because we humans can’t survive in a carbon-dioxide rich atmosphere, doesn’t mean that other species can’t. Not to mention, if we some day have the technology to get a manned spacecraft all the way out to one of these planets, wouldn’t we theoretically also be technologically advanced enough to also be able to survive in these atmospheres? If humans will have achieved interstellar flight, we should also have workable spacesuits by that time too.

The resemblance a “new Earth” has to our current home planet cannot just be superficial, the likeness needs to go deeper, literally. Three authors in an article in Planetary and Space Science have found another issue regarding finding an “Earth-like planet:” resources. We as humans have been able to live on Earth for thousands of years because we have resources available below our surface such as oil, natural gas and minerals. The authors argue that even if a planet has liquid water and an atmosphere

favorable to humans, it would be necessary for the planet to also have similar resources to Earth. If humans are to colonize a planet outside our own solar system, shopping trips to Earth to get the resources we need would not be feasible. The resources would need to previously exist on the planet itself. Humans need fuel for transportation as well as simply staying alive. Other natural minerals such as salt, gold, silver, and iron are important in our daily lives. A planet that doesn’t have these resources or equivalent substitutes would only be habitable by humans in the short term, if at all. These guidelines further decrease the likelihood of even finding an “Earth-like” planet, much less one that humans could effectively colonize and eventually inhabit in the long term. (McMachon, O’Malley-James and Parnel, 85.)

NASA’s attempt to find a “new Earth” might just be a massive waste of time and money. If we find a habitable planet outside our solar system, how would scientists suggest we get there? A manned spacecraft can’t even leave our own solar system, much less enter another one. Sure a “new Earth” would be a cool thing to find and it would get a lot of people excited. But the Kepler spacecraft is only a telescope and unable to transport living humans. Also, according to an article by Freeman Dyson, humans might not have the technology for interstellar travel for another 200 years. Currently the only manned space mission is the International Space Station which is in orbit around Earth. Commercial space flights are being developed, but they’re not planning on going very far, especially considering there will be civilians on board. If NASA is so interested in finding a “new Earth” they need to focus less on sending civilians into space for fun and more on finding a means of interstellar travel that can get astronauts to a new planet.

Basically, I think that looking for a “new Earth” is heading in the wrong direction when it comes to human space travel. Not only would it be incredibly difficult to even find a planet suitable for humans to live on for an extended period of time, but the current exploratory missions might be looking in all the wrong places. The search itself also seems pointless, as space travel technology isn't near advanced enough to ever take us to these places for several hundred years. We may be running out of fossil fuels, but we don’t need to find a new planet just yet. There is no need to be on the lookout for a “new Earth” so far away from our current, amazing, planet. There is so much to be learned much closer to home that might benefit us sooner- There’s a robot on Mars and a telescope studying gamma-rays and other energy particles. We have plenty of time to “explore strange new worlds, seek out new life and new civilizations” and we will once we have the need and the technology. For now there’s only one thing we should be thinking about.:

“Boldy go where no man has gone before.”