Editorial: Nasa Kepler shows a reality even stranger than science fiction
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.After four years, Nasa’s Kepler Mission – an orbiting space-telescope looking for other worlds like our own – has found a staggering 2,700-plus “planetary entities”.
So far, only slightly more than 100 are confirmed as definite planets, but the majority are expected to pass the test.
But it is not just the huge number of potential planets that is startling scientists. It is also their sheer weirdness. Some are unfeasibly dense, their iron terra firma washed by molten metal seas; others are so light they would, like polystyrene, float on water; others still come in at several times the vastness of Jupiter.
All of which has theoreticians tearing up their assumptions and heading back to the scientific drawing board. What Kepler has notably not found, though, is an Earth-sized planet in a “habitable zone” – neither so far from a star as to be frozen, nor so near as to be burned dry. No matter. The search has rewards enough.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments