We won't go to the stars until we're actually <i>IN</i> space. Not visiting, but there permanently. When people are born, live and die without ever being dirtside on Earth; when they live in habitats made from lunar and asteroidal materials, we're there. When we've colonized this system we will be prepared to reach out to another.<p>Now imagine these people, who've lived all their lives in wonderful space habitats, worked in ships and on other planets and such. I don't think they'll be looking for another Earth. Why would they? They'll think their space habitat is far more comfortable.<p>As far as interstellar travel is concerned, I'm certain we will solve longevity well before we travel to the stars. FTL won't be the big obstacle it seems now. When your lifespan is several centuries, spending 30-50 years of it traveling across the stars is as reasonable as our ancestors crossing Europe, the Atlantic or Pacific oceans, or the American Continent to colonize a new land.<p>Since their colony ship is a fine habitat, they won't be looking for an Earth-like planet; they'll be looking for a Sun-like star. Of which there are many. Humans can spread out at a sub-light speed across our arm of the Galaxy. But most trips will be one-way. Each colony must be self-sustaining. The best find would be an asteroid belt in the habitable zone. Cheap resources!
It's odd that the article doesn't mention the phrase "brown dwarf", which is what 2MASS J23062928-0502285 is. (See <a href="http://simbad.u-strasbg.fr/simbad/sim-id?Ident=2MASS+J23062928-0502285" rel="nofollow">http://simbad.u-strasbg.fr/simbad/sim-id?Ident=2MASS+J230629...</a>, linked from the article.)<p>The phrase "ultracool dwarf star" is descriptive, but both less familiar and less precise than "brown dwarf". Perhaps the author assumed the audience wouldn't know what a brown dwarf is, but a lot of us do (and the rest could have it explained easily enough).
At a mere 40 light years away :) But seriously, that's a good find.<p>2 planets are orbit-locked. I've always thought those make the best for sci-fi fiction, since they're effective halo's in terms of habitability.<p>source: <a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature17448.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/natu...</a> [paywalled]<p>Wikipedia already has some info on the telescope and findings: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRAPPIST" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRAPPIST</a>
<i>The sizes and temperatures of these worlds are comparable to those of Earth and Venus, and are the best targets found so far for the search for life outside the solar system.</i><p>That's quite a variation in temperature. Especially since Venus generally isn't considered to be "habitable."
If we're going to make it to another planet that far away, we're going to either need to put our astronauts in some type of suspended state or be able to give birth and raise children on ships.<p>I wonder what the effects would be of a child forming in a womb, being born, and growing up in zero gravity conditions.
Brilliant. Love the approach of using Trappist to search for candidates and then be able to turn to instruments like the Hubble and other land based big guys. It'll be amazing to see what the Hubble can see at 40 light years.
Curious what an ultracool dwarf star would like like from an orbiting planet considering it emits radiation in the infrared band? What would the flora/fauna look like? How do they evolve in an infrared environment?