Scientists discover a new giant gas planet in 'Earth's neighbourhood' – and its moons could have the right conditions to sustain LIFE
The planet was first detected by the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) in the star system Alpha Centauri, around 4.5 light years away.
The Saturn–sized planet orbits a star similar to our Sun but is likely enveloped in a thick gas cloud meaning it could not support life itself.
However, it could have icy moons which may provide the right conditions for life to form.
'This is an incredibly exciting find,' Dr Carly Howett, associate professor of space instrumentation at the University of Oxford, told the BBC.
'Four light years is a long way for us, but in the context of our galaxy, it's very close – it's practically in our cosmic backyard.
'The fact that this planet orbits a star so similar to our Sun, with comparable temperature and brightness, makes it an important target when we think about habitable worlds.'
While it was first detected last year, the planet seemed to have disappeared in follow–up observations. Astronomers are now looking for it again to prove it definitely exists.
Dr Howett explained that the planet may have 'disappeared' in recent observations because it is currently too close to its star, which is blocking the view with the amount of bright light being emitted.
Experts now hope to use the Grace Roman Space Telescope – a new NASA instrument which is due to start operating in 2027 – to look for more signs of the planet.
Further observations by JWST may be able to provide more detail on what the planet is made up of and what it looks like.
This could also provide crucial evidence on how habitable any orbiting moons may be.
Some of the gas giants in our own solar system – Saturn and Jupiter – have icy moons, and missions have been launched to explore whether they could support life.
These planets, however, are relatively far away from our Sun. In comparison, this potential 'new' planet is close to its star.
'With this system being so close to us, any exoplanets found would offer our best opportunity to collect data on planetary systems other than our own,' Charles Beichman, from NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, said.
'Yet, these are incredibly challenging observations to make, even with the world's most powerful space telescope, because these stars are so bright, close, and move across the sky quickly.'
'If confirmed, the potential planet seen in the Webb image of Alpha Centauri A would mark a new milestone for exoplanet imaging efforts,' co–first author Aniket Sanghi, from the California Institute of Technology, said.
'Of all the directly imaged planets, this would be the closest to its star seen so far. It's also the most similar in temperature and age to the giant planets in our solar system, and nearest to our home, Earth.
'Its very existence in a system of two closely separated stars would challenge our understanding of how planets form, survive, and evolve in chaotic environments.'
The new findings have been published in The Astrophysical Journal Letters.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Spectator
5 hours ago
- Spectator
The AI apocalypse is the least of our worries
What is your p(doom)? This is the pseudo-scientific manner in which some people express the strength of their belief that an artificial superintelligence running on computers will, in the coming decades, kill all humans. If your p(doom) is 0.1, you think it 10 per cent likely. If your p(doom) is 0.9, you're very confident it will happen. Well, maybe 'confident' isn't the word. Those who have a high p(doom) and seem otherwise intelligent argue that there's no point in having children or planning much for the future because we are all going to die. One of the most prominent doomers, a combative autodidact and the author of Harry Potter fan-fiction named Eliezer Yudkowsky, was recently asked what advice he would give to young people. He replied: 'Don't expect a long life.' Expressing such notions as probabilities between 0 and 1 makes them sound more rigorous, but assigning numerical likelihoods to one-off potential catastrophes is more like a game of blindfold darts: no one agrees on how such figures should be calculated. Just as no one actually knows how to build an artificial superintelligence or understands how one, if it were possible, would behave, despite reams of science-fictional argumentation by Yudkowsky and others. Everyone's just guessing, and going off the vibes they get from interacting with the latest chatbot. The AI doomers are the subject of too many chapters in Tom Ough's book, which traces the career of one of their godfathers, the philosopher Nick Bostrom and his Future of Humanity Institute, a research unit latterly shut down by the University of Oxford. It also excitedly relates Rishi Sunak's creation of the UK's AI Safety Institute, which earlier this year was renamed the AI Security Institute when it was announced that the American AI company Anthropic would be helping the UK to 'enhance public services'. Presumably the implication that AI might be unsafe was distasteful to the American corporation, currently valued at $100 billion. Probably AI doomerism as a whole is just another millennarian apocalypse cult. No one mentioned here, at least, seems bothered by the harms that existing AI is causing – from destroying students' ability to think to helping lawyers plead arguments with reference to made-up cases or decimating the creative class as a whole – inasmuch as what is called 'AI' is a set of giant plagiarism machines that are fed illegally acquired artwork and books and simply spit out probabilistically recombined copies of them. Much more dangerous in the real world are the other classes of 'existential risk' – catastrophes that could cause the extinction of the human race, or at least a very bad few decades for billions of people. What about an asteroid strike, for example? A space rock 10km across did for the dinosaurs, and over Earth's long history the planet has, as Ough amusingly puts it, resembled 'not so much an island paradise as a coconut shy'. So he talks to the scientists who successfully conducted the first asteroid-deflection experiment, when Nasa crashed a spacecraft into one named Dimorphos in 2022 and successfully altered its trajectory. Not as glamorous as sending Bruce Willis to nuke it but arguably more practical. Ough also talks to people worried about solar storms – a big enough coronal mass ejection could bring down power grids and electrical equipment over an entire hemisphere of Earth – and about supervolcanoes, which are like volcanoes but bigger and could cause something resembling a global nuclear winter lasting years. It turns out that there are even people working on 'defusing' volcanoes by drilling carefully into their magma chambers – though it is a bit worrying that only 30 per cent of the world's active volcanoes are monitored for signs they might be getting ready to blow. Other chapters consider nuclear war, and the potential for saving people in a real nuclear winter by converting the fungi that will flourish in such conditions into a mass food source; or the prospects for reversing some global warming by geoengineering – seeding the high atmosphere with sulphur particles that reflect sunlight. (This one might go wrong.) The dangers of biowarfare, meanwhile, have never really gone away. Indeed they are greater than ever, Ough argues, in a high-tech world of benchtop DNA synthesis of novel pathogens. The conceit of this book is that all the men and women studying such risks are part of a global society of superhero boffins that the author names the 'anti-catastrophe league'. And it would indeed be pleasing if they all worked together in a giant spaceship, like the Avengers. Ough's style is at times misfiringly jokey (I don't think anyone needs to be told that Hollywood is 'that ever-reliable purveyor of public collective-consciousness epiphenomena'). But he writes with vim and colour about a lot of interesting subjects. My favourite chapter follows the people who are really interested in drilling extremely deep holes into the Earth, trying to beat the impressive record of the Soviets, who made a borehole 12km down. Do more of this and you'd have lots of cheap geothermal energy to power, er, more AI data centres. So how worried should we be? Here the dubious applicability of probability arithmetic raises its head once again. Because huge natural catastrophes, such as supervolcano explosions or big asteroids hitting Earth, have been observed to happen only once every 10,000 or 100 million years, as it might be, Ough takes it that we're relatively safe from such things right now, and that they are really problems for our descendants to worry about. But that is an irrational assumption. There is no law to say that events will continue to follow a regular temporal pattern, and one of those extremely dangerous events could easily happen tomorrow. After reading this entertainingly dark book, your p(doom) might be very low for the AI apocalypse but much higher for other kinds.
The Independent
12 hours ago
- The Independent
NASA's nuclear gamble on the moon faces growing skepticism
Fast-tracking a NASA plan to build a nuclear reactor on the moon may sound dubious. Experts say that's because it is. 'The whole proposal is cock-eyed and runs against the sound management of a space program that is now being starved of money,' national security analyst, nuclear expert and author Joseph Cirincione told The Independent. Nuclear has been used in space since the 1960s. That's nothing new. The U.S. launched its first test reactor into orbit in 1965, and the former Soviet Union has sent up dozens more. NASA says that a new 100-kilowatt reactor could be used to power a future base at the lunar South Pole, and fuel prospective missions to Mars and beyond. Nuclear would help to fill gaps in solar energy that occur when that side of the moon is in darkness for two weeks. The majority of space experts have said that placing a reactor on the moon is possible, so, why is NASA's current plan 'cock-eyed?' The problem is the proposed timeline. Interim NASA Administrator Sean Duffy, who also serves as President Donald Trump's Secretary of Transportation, pushed to expedite the project, detailed in a memo this week. Duffy said the administration wanted to have a nuclear reactor ready to launch by 2030. Earlier this year, China and Russia announced a plan to build a nuclear reactor for a lunar base by 2035. 'The first country to do so could potentially declare a 'keep-out' zone which would significantly inhibit the United States from establishing a planned Artemis presence if not there first,' Duffy said. NASA first announced in 2021 that it would put a reactor on the moon 'within a decade.' In 2024, NASA then said that their target date for delivery a reactor to the Earth-based launchpad was the early 2030s. But, Cirincione says essentially no progress has been made. 'It was in the last Trump administration that NASA had put out a press release, they had a YouTube video, they had these announcements about how they're going to develop these small, modular nuclear reactors for use on the moon, and it was going to be ready by 2026,' said Cirincione, who is vice-chair of the Center for International Policy, a non-profit that advocates for a peaceful approach to foreign policy. 'Oh, really? So, where is it?' Ultimately, the expert believes a nuclear reactor on the moon could take up to 20 years to become a reality. NASA would need a working launch vehicle, a small and adaptable reactor, and the ability to land on the moon. Right now, the SpaceX Starship is the only vehicle option – but it has exploded during several of its test flights. NASA has been working with Boeing on a Space Launch System - the main competitor to Space X's Starship - but that program would be canceled under the Trump administration's proposed cuts which slash 24 percent from NASA's overall budget. Landing on the moon is no picnic, and attempts by Japanese space companies in 2023 and 2025 ended in crashes. There are also the scientific and technological advances needed for the nuclear reactors. The reactors must be able to withstand harsh conditions on the moon, including temperatures swings from 250 degrees Fahrenheit during the day to minus 400 degrees at night. 'Small modular nuclear reactors, it turns out, are always just around the corner – a corner you never get to turn,' Cirincione said. Many scientists and nuclear energy experts have shared in Cirincione's skepticism. Dr. Kathryn Huff, a former nuclear energy official at the U.S. Department of Energy, and professor at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, wrote in a Bluesky social media post that she's not 'bullish' on 'unrealistic timelines.' 'The 2030 target does not align well with recent budgetary trends…' she explained in a statement, shared by the university. 'Accelerating the FSP program could come at the expense of other critical priorities, including earth science, climate observation and space-based weather forecasting – all core elements of NASA's public-serving mission.' Dr. Alfredo Carpineti, an Italian astrophysicist, wrote in IFLScience this week that the proposal is 'unfeasible.' 'Even if we allow landing the nuclear reactor on December 31, 2030, the timing is really too short for something that must not have any faults if you want to operate it safely,' Carpineti wrote. Others were more optimistic about NASA's accelerated timeline. Sebastian Corbisiero, a senior program manager at Idaho National Laboratory who leads the Energy Department's space reactor program, told The Independent that a nuclear reactor on the moon is 'doable' by 2030. 'Nuclear reactor technology has been around for decades, so its well known,' he said. 'Some key differences with a space reactor is that it needs to fit on a rocket, so there are mass and volume requirements; and that the system needs to operate in vacuum – so components will need to be built to survive that environment.' Dr. Bhavya Lal, a former associate administrator for technology, policy, and strategy at NASA, and former aerospace executive Roger Myers, recently argued that it would be possible to have nuclear reactor on the moon by 2030, and it would take $3 billion to do so. 'It's possible, but it will require serious commitment,' Lal told The Independent. But even if plans are speeded up, Lal says there's no need to worry about the prospect of the moon blowing up. It's 'simply not grounded in science,' she said.
BBC News
14 hours ago
- BBC News
Blood Moon lunar eclipse: When is it and how can you see it?
A lunar eclipse, also known as a 'Blood Moon', is taking place on 7 September and should be partly visible from the UK. A lunar eclipse is when the Earth is between the Sun and the Moon, meaning the Moon is in the Earth's shadow. When it is a total eclipse the Moon can take on a red/orange colour which is why it is sometimes called a Blood is the second lunar eclipse of 2025. Read on to find out more about what a Blood Moon is and when best to look out for it. What is a Blood Moon lunar eclipse? A Blood Moon or total lunar eclipse happens when the Sun, Earth and Moon are lined up. That means the Earth moves directly in between the Sun and Moon, blocking the sunlight. The Moon then enters the shadow created behind the Earth, creating an the light of the Sun passes through the Earth's atmosphere, the sunlight light is removed leaving only red longer wavelengths to reach the Moon giving it a reddish colour. Unlike a solar eclipse people do not need protective glasses to see a lunar eclipse. How to see the Blood Moon lunar eclipsse? People based in Asia and parts of Australia will get to see the eclipse from start to in Europe and Africa may still see it all as Museums Greenwich advises that in the UK the Moon is due to rise above the horizon just in time for people to see the total lunar eclipse. It says the "maximum will occur at 7.33pm BST from the UK, with the eclipse's actual maximum at 7.11pm when the Moon is below the horizon." The Moon will then gradually move out of Earth's shadow until 9.55pm. The advice is to find a high point with a clear view to the east, as the Moon will be low on the horizon and quite difficult to see.
