MIT Satellite Could Trounce Kepler Telescope, Finding Thousands of Exoplanets in Just Two Years

The TESS should also be capable at spotting asteroids, as well as planets.

What is the rush to find these planets if we still have no way of getting there? Or of communicating with them? Or of communicating with a probe we might send there (knowing that it would be centuries before it got even close).

It would seem that if you were going to rush, it would be off world habitation (since no matter how Earth-like and life-potentialled, the odds of a planet being the exact balance humans need to live is near impossible) and free space habitation (since with known physics, you would have to live in a free-space colony ship for generations to get anywhere).

After all, those endevors are the kinds likely to have the technelogical advances that improve life here on Earth (like Tang and microwave ovens).

I hear you Oakspar - we can find another m class planet that's 22 light years away and it's still....22 light years away. Maybe there's just a general consensus that we'll solve this problem in the next 10 years. Quantum physics...worm holes...richard branson...

I disagree. Finding a planet that has the potential to support life would be an incredible scientific discovery, no matter how far away. Though the technology to get to these planets may not be available now, the discovery of a life supporting may jump start the research necessary to get us there in the future

How absolutely disappointing I run into people on a site called PopSci that don't understand the importance of discovering absolutely anything. When did the word 'discovering' lose it's meaning?

I find it not only a wondrous occasion at the thought of learning something new, but get even more astounded of the fact that I'm able to learn as an organic being in the first place- standing in the 3rd dimension of this universe.
Since when did finding something similar to your tastes billions of miles away from you become weak information Oakspar77777 and beantown179?

I mean Oakspar77777, you even go so far as to use "...with known physics..." in your argument for immateriality of finding such planets. Why would you ever want to put a cap on the precision of our physics? We can only gain from learning something new in physics whether it helps us now, or later.
Besides why on (or off) Earth would we ever set course for a planet or star and not build said ship in accordance to our arrival destination needs, not only our travel needs? We'll just "figure it out" later?

Your logic is dated, welcome to 2010.

"With known physics" clearly and specifically implies that there is not a cap to physics, only our CURRENT understanding of it. It implies in simple English that expanding our understanding of physics and the ability to travel in the universe is far more meaningful than counting how many rocks are floating in the heavens.

BUT, I am sure that my logic is dated. It is dated to Swift, who criticized Enlightenment scientist with there heads in the clouds while people had to remind them that the world was filled with people who needed to eat. (Gulliver's Travels) It is dated to Plato, who acknowledged the importance of the Ideal, but still ate plain bread. It is dated to Aristotle, who saw that there is a heirarchy in all things and that to progress through a system was better than by inspiration and chance alone. Oh yes, my logic is very dated.

Science for science's sake is a nice religion to hold on to when you don't want to justify your exspences, but when has anything ever come from science for science's sake?

Look at the great scientific advances up to 2010. How many of them were science for science's sake? How many were the outcome of conflict, be it war or buisness?

I'm not saying that science should not reach. It should, however, be something the knowing of which would be useful. If this was a study on overcoming the difficulties of space travel or communications, I would support it.

Doing something based on the hope that technology will make it relevant is foolish - technology notoriously does not deliver on its promises (or does so in unexspected ways).

So, here are some go old logical 2009 ideas for space exploration:

1) Solve the problems associated with any space travel - gravity and radiation.

2) Solve the problems associated with long term space travel - sustainability, maintainance, fabrication, energy (particularly post-solar), and propusion.

3) Solve the problems with off world colonization - resource generation and purification, exspansion, social engineering, custom mutano-genesis, and geoforming.

4) Solve the cost of getting all this drek off the planet's surface.

5) THEN, when we have the capability of putting people in sustainable, free-space colonies, without dependence on Sol for energy or Earth for additional resources, AND AFTER we have successfully colonized near Earth planets, should we care about finding other places to send humans off to.

I'm really glad you think you understand the "right" way to do things, but I'm even more elated that you aren't the one calling the shots.

The great thing about humans is their ability to multitask. You seriously would put all focus of space exploration fields (from the wide range of human interests) into just those categories? Wow, all I can say is Wow. You seriously underestimate your own species.

Mind you you're the one who's assuming we won't discover something new about travel (yes maybe even the "light" barrier, be it wormholes or unknown other.) Since all you have to go on is what you know now, you're possibly spending wasted time and money and peoples lives on "knowing" we need such space travel requirements when we could actually do it more efficiently/safely...

What I'm saying is there are people working in ALL of these fields already. From space travel to "are we a common occurrence?" We need a broad range of study to make better decisions in general. Thankfully you can't force all scientist to be interested in the same things because their human and contribute to the organic growth of knowledge.

I would never turn someone down for their knowledge of something, especially when it's a direct correlation to the field of study I might be in, -or- to the many others in the many science fields around me. I support them all for universal progress.

Very cool science here. It's mind bending that TESS and Kepler are positive steps towards answering the age old questions "Are we alone?" Phenomenal!

To the commentors with tunnel vision you may recall the Apollo missions. All the technological advances and all the inventions came from the selection of a destination (the moon) and the criteria/problems it posed, not the other way around! You're right, nothing ever came from the 'science for science sake' space race! Seriously, how is it possible someone on this site could be that ignorant? Could you imagine how inefficient it would be to design a spacecraft with no idea of where it would have to go and the specific challenges that destination would pose? Just think ofa simple car. You couldn't even make an educated wheel or suspension selection unless you knew the type(s) of surface(s) it would be driven on!

You can bet your sweet qwerty that if another planet that could yeild new resources suddenly became available, we would have a warp ship within 10 years.

It's simple economics. The moment Donald Trump finds out somebody will pay 10 million dollars for a 3 night stay on the moon, he's building a casino up there.

It's no coincidance that the russian space agency has been funded mostly by American celbraties over the last few years.

If we find other planets that we can put people on, remove vital minerals from, and/or increase value of anything, we're doing it. Just watch.