Category Archives: astronomy

When a Galaxy Meets a Cluster

Space is big and even the regions between one galaxy and its neighbor can seem empty once you get “out there.” So, what happens when two objects get close together in space? You get collisions and close approaches.

Andromeda Galaxy Collides with the Milky Way

The birth of our own Moon was likely the result of a collision between the infant Earth and a Mars-sized world called “Theia”. Of course, one galaxy can collide with another. That’s what astronomers predict will happen between the Milky Way and Andromeda Galaxies in a few billion years. The image above shows what it might look like to an observer on a planet inside one of the two galaxies. But, what about other kinds of collisions and near-misses?

Hubble Looks at M92 core

Astronomers using the Canada-France-Hawaii Telescope on the Big Island of Hawai’i took a look at a nearby globular cluster called M92. It’s about 27,000 light-years from Earth and can be spotted just at the top of the constellation Hercules. What the astronomers “see” is a stream of stars being pulled out of the cluster. They’re not immediately obvious to the casual observer, but in specific wavelengths of light, they stand right out, as shown here in a plot of data from the observations.

Star stream from the globular cluster M92.

These long, thin lines of stars exist because M92 is too close to the Milky Way galaxy. The immense gravitational pull of the Milky Way is ripping the smaller conglomerations of stars apart. It’s not a fast process. Some of the stellar streams caused by such interactions can last for billions of years. In the case of the stream from M92, it’s been around for about 500 million years. And, that short length of time leads to some interesting questions.

Why Such a Young Stream?

The observations from CFHT and the Pan-STARRS1 survey telescope at Haleakala on Maui provided a lot of data to help astronomers figure out how long the M92 stream has been around. The data also give some idea of the cluster’s origin. It might also help astronomers figure out the distribution of dark matter in the Milky Way and its role in corraling a globular cluster as it passes by.

The M92 cluster itself is about 1.1 billion years old, but the stream is 500 million yeas old. So, something happened ‘recently’ to cause the cluster to lose stars to the stream. That “something” is gravitational interaction with the Milky Way as the cluster passed by. But from where? That raises questions about where M92 originally formed. If it formed elsewhere and only started losing stars as it got closer to the Milky Way, then perhaps astronomers can use the information about its stars to figure out where it came from originally.

More about Globulars

Typically, the globular clusters like M92 orbit the central region of the Milky Way. Such clusters contain stars tightly bound together in a spherical shape. How and where these clusters form is still an unfinished astronomy story. In many clusters, most stars are about the same age. That means they all formed about the same time. However, some have stars of varying ages, which suggests they formed in “waves” of starbirth. If we look at various galaxies that are undergoing starburst activity, it’s easy to see many globulars forming in such areas. And, some of those galaxies are in collisions or close interactions, which spurs the starburst activity.

M92 itself is fairly young, compared to the galaxy. At 1.1 billion years, it’s about 10 billion years younger than the Milky Way. Our galaxy began forming shortly after the birth of the universe, or about 13.4 billion years ago. Could the Milky Way have undergone a large starburst epoch about the time M92 was born? It’s not likely. So, it looks pretty likely that M92 formed somewhere else and got caught up in the gravitational tug of our galaxy and its dark matter halo.

Today, the Milky Way is actively consuming (cannibalizing) several smaller galaxies, including the nearby Large and Small Magellanic Clouds. That’s how the Milky Way has grown over time. It does have other globulars that are much older than M92, so they likely formed along with our galaxy. But, there is little evidence showing that the Milky has interacted with other large galaxies in the past 10 billion years. So, that avenue of globular creation doesn’t seem to be how M92 was created. Perhaps it was born in another collision and migrated here? That would be a fascinating story!

Questions about Our Galaxy and M92

Astronomers want to find out where M92 formed and what the conditions were when it did. What was going on 1.1 billion years ago when it was born? And, what were conditions like when it wandered too close to the core of our galaxy and began losing its stars? Those questions await more observations and answers.

Is Earth the Best Habitable Planet?

The search for a habitable planet like Earth just hit a new challenge, from planets that could well be BETTER than Earth at fostering life. How could this be? We all know Earth is the template on which we base our assumptions about the chances for life elsewhere. We are searching Mars and other places in our own solar system, including Venus.

It turns out that the best habitable planet could have conditions much MORE suitable for life than Earth. A habitable planet, such as Kepler 62F, shown here, which orbits a K-type star, could have several variables that influence life. This world, and others like it, could be orbiting stars that are more slowly changing and longer life expectancies than the Sun. Astronomers have actually identified a couple of dozen contenders for the “Better than Earth” sweepstakes. They are called “super-habitable planets” and if they can be found, they’d all a little larger, warmer, and likely wetter than Earth. Those conditions make it easier for life to develop and thrive.

All of this comes from a study made by a scientist at Washington State University. Dr. Dirk Schulze-Makuch published an article in the journal Astrobiology that details the types of planets and stars that could be in the super-Goldilocks state. That is, more welcoming of life than our home planet. His contenders are more than 100 light-years away from us, so we’re going to need some superpower telescopes to observe them. That would include the upcoming James Webb Space Telescope, as well as the proposed LUVOIR space observatory and European Space Agency’s PLATO space telescope.

Searching for a Habitable Planet that’s “Super”

For now, Schulze-Makuch, a geobiologist with expertise in planetary habitability, is working with astronomers Rene Heller of the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research and Edward Guinan of Villanova University to answer questions about superhabitability. They needed to identify the criteria that would make a world “superhabitable” and then look through the characteristics of the more than 4500 known exoplanets to see if they fit. Those worlds may not be inhabited, but they could have the conditions to host life.

What Makes a Habitable Planet “Super”

The first thing was to look at systems with worlds that could be terrestrial, and orbit within the stars Goldilocks zone. That’s the region where liquid water could flow on the surface of a supposedly habitable planet. But, there are other factors to consider, such as the age of a planet’s star. The Sun, for example, will live about 10 billion years.

That sounds like a long time, but think about this: life started here some 3.8 billion years ago, when the Earth was pretty young. However, but it took quite a long time before the more complex life forms appeared. So, it might make sense to look for worlds where the stars live longer to search out the possibility of complex life arising on them. Shorter-lived stars wouldn’t be around long enough for complex life (and indeed, intelligent life) to form. Or, they’d start to age before then, making conditions for life worse than before.

So, longer-lived G stars would be good candidates forhosting superhabitable worlds. And, it’s possible that K-type stars could be useful here. They’re cooler, less massive, and luminous than the Sun. Their big advantage is that they live a lot longer than the Sun — somewhere between 20 to 70 billion years. That lifespan would allow orbiting planets to be older as well.

All that extra time gives life a lot longer to develop and create more complex forms. The downside here is that much older planets could have exhausted their interior heat, which would affect their ability to create a magnetic field. Given these constraints, the sweet spot for life on any world is probably between 5 to 8 billion years. At 4.5 billion years, Earth is a precocious producer of life. It might be an outlier.

More Measures of Habitability

Age is only one factor to think about when we consider whether a habitable planet could be superhabitable. Their sizes and masses are also important. A planet that is 10% larger than the Earth should have more habitable land distributed among its oceans and continents. That gives more places for life to life and thrive. If we find a planet that is about one and a half times Earth’s mass, it’s very like to retain its interior heating. That usually happens through the decay of radioactive elements in the core. Finally, such a more-massive world would have a stronger gravity. That helps it retain an atmosphere much longer than smaller, less-massive worlds.

The atmosphere is a big player in the habitability of a planet. Water is a huge factor — in fact, it’s necessary for life. A little more water in the form of moisture, clouds, and humidity is always useful when fostering life. A slightly overall warmer temperature, a mean surface temperature of about 5 degrees Celsius (or about 8 degrees Fahrenheit) greater than Earth, together with the additional moisture, would be also better for life. Of course, we can see this playing out here on Earth. Places with higher warmth and moisture have a greater diversity of life (such as in tropical rain forests) than the areas with colder, drier conditions.

Are There Superhabitable Planets “Out There”?

The scientists looked at 24 planet candidates they thought might meet all the criteria for being “better than Earth” in terms of superhabitability. Only one meets four of the criteria, but none meet all of them. So, no superhabitables out there among the 24. But, the galaxy is huge and we’ve only just started the search for exoplanets in the past 25 years. Earth is still the only place we know FOR sure has life, and it does a good job at hosting life across a huge range of conditions. Still, the ideas in the current research pave the way for future searches around stars that may even provide better conditions for life than we have here.