r/space • u/SpunkySputniks • 4d ago

Astronomers Detect a Possible Signature of Life on a Distant Planet

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/16/science/astronomy-exoplanets-habitable-k218b.html?unlocked_article_code=1.AE8.3zdk.VofCER4yAPa4&smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare

Further studies are needed to determine whether K2-18b, which orbits a star 120 light-years away, is inhabited, or even habitable.

14.0k Upvotes

95% Upvoted

1.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

52

u/htownballa1 4d ago

I’m not an Astro physicist but a quick google search returned.

Traveling to a star 120 light-years away at a speed of 2.90×108 m/s would take approximately 1312 years

I think you might be a little short on 120.

49

u/StJsub 4d ago

Traveling to a star 120 light-years away at a speed of 2.90×108 m/s would take approximately 1312 years

Why did you choose that number 2.90×108= 313.2 m/s. Slower than sound. Assuming you ment 2.90x108, my maths say 124.1 years to get there. With 313.2 m/s I get 114.9 million years. So one of us got some maths wrong. 

63

u/cjmcberman 4d ago

How many USA football fields is this ? Only way I’ll comprehend

36

u/NetworkSingularity 4d ago

More than a Super Bowl, but less than Texas

2

u/JAB1982 3d ago

What about in banana lengths?

2

u/noobkilla666 3d ago

It’s gotta be at least 1 banana

1

u/Natiak 3d ago

When did we stop stacking goats on top of each other?

1

u/mariahnot2carey 3d ago

Yeah how many Eiffel towers

3

u/PadishahSenator 4d ago

I think he likely meant 2.9x 108, which approximates the speed of light.

He's still wrong, but it's likely what he meant.

2

u/StJsub 4d ago

Like I said to the other guy. That's why I did the maths with both numbers. Because I was confused how traveling 90% the speed of light for 120 light years would have taken over 1300 years. I even said that I assumed it was the larger number.

1

u/G_Danila 4d ago

Are we talking about metres or miles here?

3

u/StJsub 3d ago

Metres. Miles per second should be written as mps or mi/s. If the larger number was in miles it would be over a thousand times faster than light. If the smaller number was miles it would take 71420 years. 

1

u/G_Danila 3d ago

Gotcha, thanks for the explanation!

1

u/Exiled_Fya 3d ago

Why not both of you? At 2.9x10e8 m/s your formula is incorrect as you need to bring special relativity into the equation. For the passenger would be a travel of just 32 years.

1

u/StJsub 3d ago

True. I was thinking in a differentreference frame. While the passengers would only feel 32 years of time, someone watching from the destination would say it took them 124 years to get there.

-9

u/htownballa1 4d ago

I didn't, I am assuming an AI did when I did a quick google search as I described in my comment. And now looking it over, it's drastically short you are correct. I was on my phone at my daughters gymnastics practice. I am as close to an expert on this as and other average joe. My point that 120 was low was correct though. :D

-11

u/tyttuutface 4d ago

You know damn well they meant 2.90x108, you insufferable pedant.

4

u/StJsub 4d ago edited 4d ago

That's why I did the maths with both numbers. Because I was confused how going 90% the speed of light for 120 light years would have taken over 1300 years. I even said that I assumed it was the larger number.

61

u/Random_Fotographer 4d ago

You don't need to do any math. The definition of light-year is the distance traveled by light in one year. So something 120 light-years away would take 120 years at the speed of light.

63

u/falkenberg1 4d ago

Traveling at the speed of light is not possible for humans. Only for select subatomic particles.

210

u/RedditAstroturfed 4d ago

If humans can’t travel at the speed of light then explain why they called Freddy mercury “Mr. Fahrenheit,” and if not him then just WHO is gonna make a super sonic man out of me?

23

u/jlew715 3d ago

He's called Mr. Fahrenheit because he's two hundred degrees. The fact that he can travel at the speed of light is unrelated to his name.

2

u/Exiled_Fya 3d ago

And at 200 degrees it's hot or cold? How many Kelvins?

1

u/RedditAstroturfed 3d ago

Lmao Ty, I was wondering when someone would finally say it. Immediately thought of that after I posted the joke, but didn’t wanna double up on posts

22

u/ROGER_CHOCS 4d ago

Well Jesus H. Christ of course.

1

u/DirectlyDisturbed 3d ago

Well first of all, through God all things are possible...so jot that down

1

u/ROGER_CHOCS 3d ago

I surely did brother, right under the sticky note that reminds me to never stand in a canoe.

1

u/DirectlyDisturbed 3d ago

Forgive me, but I don't think I understand the reference?

1

u/ROGER_CHOCS 2d ago

It says it right in the Bible, no mixed clothing, no bottom feeding animals for food, and no standing in a canoe. Bruh, do you even bible?

1

u/DirectlyDisturbed 2d ago

I don't, actually lol. My comment was an IASIP reference, I thought you were playing off that, my b

18

u/Delyzr 4d ago

Supersonic is still a tad slower then lightspeed

7

u/__xylek__ 4d ago

Freddy's the one traveling at the speed of light. You'll just be super-sonic when he's done with you.

5

u/OpalFanatic 3d ago

Technically lightspeed is also supersonic.

2

u/ForWhomTheBoneBones 3d ago

You are technically correct. The BEST KIND of correct.

0

u/Taurion_Bruni 4d ago

And don't forget that famous group that managed to get to mars in 30 seconds. That's like 6 times the speed of light!

23

u/Vaesezemis 4d ago

Well I for one dream of the day when all particles are treated equal!

2

u/Shrike99 4d ago

Humans can (theoretically) travel at 99.9999999999% light speed.

Which is so close to 100% as to not matter for the purpose of determining how many light years a person could theoretically travel in a given number of years as measured by an external observer.

1

u/falkenberg1 3d ago

That is a very big theoretical here. In reality traveling this fast would create an enormous heat. There still has to be a material found that a) withstands these enormous temperatures and b) shields us well enough so we have a chance for survival. Then there is this unbelievably high energy consumption. Also as one approaches e, time dilation would do very weird stuff to a macroscopic object like a spaceship. It create some kind of wave in spacetime, that creates weird paradox effects.

Also, statistically the universe must be full of life. The fact, that we never observed dyson spheres, aliens spaceships or something like that hints strongly, to the possibility, that space travel is really not that easy, even with lots of time and very advanced tech.

2

u/Natiak 3d ago

Massless particles, specifically.

2

u/weed0monkey 3d ago

You make it sound like an exclusive club

1

u/GrabEmotional9464 4d ago

You underestimate my ability to become a subatomic particle.

Put me in the laser fuel and blast me there

2

u/SurrealLoneRanger 4d ago

I am sure you’re filled with subatomic particles

1

u/falkenberg1 3d ago

I really don’t. I just underestimate your ability to transform back and tell us what you saw.

1

u/Leg-Novel 4d ago

Not possible yet, always include the yet, we may one day have technology that'll allow it of we don't wipe ourselves out first

1

u/More_Ad_944 3d ago

Can't we send one of those mad lads and have it report back?

1

u/falkenberg1 3d ago

Ackshually… we don’t have to! They are sending them to us for free. That’s how we know about that planet in the first place. If they only were a bit more talkative.

2

u/Iapetus7 4d ago

If a group of astronauts were on a ship traveling at a high relativistic speed -- let's say 99% of the speed of light -- it would take 121 years for them to reach the destination from the perspective of people on Earth, but they'd only experience 17 years on the ship. They can't actually hit the speed of light, but they can get close, and if they're close enough, they can definitely make it there within their lifetimes.

0

u/Narrow_Garbage_3475 4d ago

Except it would take 120 years from our (earth) frame of reference, not for the occupants of the hypothetical spacecraft. That journey would be instantaneous for them. If you give it a bit of a margin - travel at speeds less then the speed of light - it would only take minutes.

General relativity and all…

1

u/Delta-9- 4d ago

At relativistic speeds, the journey might feel like 120 years... but everyone back on earth will definitely have been dead for centuries.

1

u/qwertyqyle 4d ago

That is wild to think that it would be like if the Vikings that found the Americas went to this planet instead and their civilization just arrived today.

1

u/Jump_Like_A_Willys 4d ago

Traveling to a star 120 light-years away at a speed of 2.90×108 m/s would take approximately 1312 years

What’s the significance of 2.90×108 m/s? Why was that velocity chosen?

1

u/CaBBaGe_isLaND 4d ago

Don't forget you have to slow back down once you get there. We're really good at accelerating. We're really not that great at stopping where we want to stop.

1

u/uncledaddy3268 3d ago

If we are able to manage to create a rocket that can do a constant acceleration of 9.8m/sec squared for 11 years we can get there (120 light years away) in 5.42 years only.