Talk:Kepler-22b

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Astronomy / Astronomical objects  (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon Kepler-22b is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Astronomical objects, which collaborates on articles related to astronomical objects.
 

SETI Research[edit]

The US Military is funding the Allen Radio Telescope Array to search for signals from Kepler-22. Thought that it might be a useful addition to the page. [1]. I also would like to suggest that the artist's conception be moved up, not to primary image status but to the point where it is not just touching the notes. Wer900 (talk) 23:28, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Distance[edit]

Anyone know how far away it is? 198.2.4.2 (talk) 19:02, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

About 600 light-years (http://www.space.com/13821-nasa-kepler-alien-planets-habitable-zone.html) Samcashion (talk) 19:04, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it's too far! ;-) 205.169.70.175 (talk) 19:09, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Too "far"? A fairly relative statement, no less so when it comes to cosmic distances and, I'd say, depends pretty much on your intentions. ;-) 600ly is not that far actually, not to my mind at least, and if it should turn out possible to eventually confirm that this is indeed a rocky planet--I wouldn't run a bet on the premise that we'll ever find an exoplanet presumably so much like Earth at shorter distance. Not least because there simply may not be any. As someone already noted further down, yes, as yet the planetbox is all corrupted, though I'm afraid I can't put this in order myself either. Someone else is wanted. Greetings, Zero Thrust (talk) 19:24, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Good point! It's not very far to anyone who lives there!  :-)

"Zero Thrust", does that refer to any theories of space travel? Interesting idea... 205.169.70.175 (talk) 19:50, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah it's not to far, I've been there last summer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.11.87.161 (talk) 20:17, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Uh-hu.. like I wrote before: "depends much on intentions". ;) Your try at being funny is acknowledged notwithstanding, whatever it's worth. But why not at least "signing" your posts from now on? And, no, to the IP above, I'm afraid my username does not refer to modes of space travel (nor theories thereof), much less so to theories of "faster-than-light" travel. ;) It does however refer to a thrust being momentarily equal to zero, believe it or not. That said, let's better keep it a tad more on topic here--it's not a chat, thanks. Zero Thrust (talk) 22:27, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Canopus is 300 ly away, while the center of the milky way is 26000ly distant. canopus is a highly visible supergiant. This may give some scale if added to article.(mercurywoodrose)75.61.141.86 (talk) 02:15, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Mass/size[edit]

We seem to have an estimate of it's size. Can we get a window of the planets mass and therefor density from its orbital period around its star?198.2.4.2 (talk) 13:02, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

This requires radial velocity measurements, which will likely this summer when Keck gets a good look. AldaronT/C 22:44, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

i say its far but might have life on it its worth a shot even if it is too far. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.222.248.61 (talk) 14:21, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

It has been estimated that it is probably a "Neptunian" (i.e. mass similar to Neptune[9]) planet with a mass of ~35 Earth masses

This seems very unlikely. The radius is well-known, an Earth-like planet of that radius would have about 14 Earth masses. Neptune-like planets are much less dense than Earth-like planets. A Neptunian planet of that size would have only about 4 Earth masses. It is hard to imagine a planet 2.5 times as dense as the Earth. -- Ligneus (talk) 09:20, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
In fact an Earth-like planet with a radius 2.4 times bigger than Earth should have a mass of around 40 earth masses (definitely not 14). The problem is you simply CANNOT scale planet size with density! What's the density of Earth? 5.5g/cm^3 right? Wrong. Earth's uncompressed density is only 4.4g/cm^3. The other 1.1g/cm^3 is due to the effect of pressure on Earth's interior, effectively squashing everything into a smaller space.
Now take a planet with 10 times the material! Uncompressed density is still 4.4g/cm^3. But all that mass squeezing on top of itself produces serious compression. When you take that into account, the average compressed density of an Earth-like 2.4Re planet is MORE THAN 14G/CM^3, giving a mass of ~40Me. Not only do we know Kepler-22b cannot have a mass of ~40Me (through radial velocity), this is much greater than the mass required for a planet to start accreted hydrogen from the stellar disc (10Me), so what is most likely is a ~10Me rocky core and a 5-10Me Hydrogen envelope. That makes it a totally inhospitable, completely uninhabitable Neptune-like planet. Don't get sucked in by the NASA media hype.
I've tried to edit this article twice to explain this and it just gets deleted.

Links[edit]

External links should not be in the main body of the article, they should all be filed under external links Ottawakismet (talk) 18:57, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Done. 205.169.70.175 (talk) 19:10, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Stat Box (On the right) Has Problem[edit]

I don't know how to do those, but the constellation, as well as other times, is not showing. 205.169.70.175 (talk) 19:11, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Article Needed for Parent Star Kepler 22b[edit]

If it has a planet like this, it deserves an article, if only first a stub. 205.169.70.175 (talk) 19:47, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think much information is yet available on the star at the moment. Kirsten Z Jacob 08:08, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Bogus sources[edit]

Can we seriously be using space.com and BBC news as astronomy resources in anything other than an article on media's role popularizing astronomy? -- G. Robert Shiplett 20:08, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

In what way are they "Bogus"? Are they factually incorrect? If not then they're perfectly good sources. --Hibernian (talk) 21:05, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
The BBC are an excellent source of science stories.--GwydionM (talk) 21:39, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Space.com is highly respected and always uses science sources.64.134.124.157 (talk) 23:44, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't know about bogus sources, but the guy that started this section is using a bogus username (take a closer look). 64.134.124.157 (talk) 00:03, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Redirecting[edit]

We need to make it where "Kepler 22b" redirects people to this article via the search bar. As of now it only comes up when you type "Kepler-22b" (with the hyphen). Samcashion (talk) 22:05, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Should probably also have one for Keppler 22b. 69.108.160.153 (talk) 06:20, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Udnduenimexim — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.21.173.46 (talk) 18:35, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

First in habitable zone[edit]

Is this really the first planet in the habitable zone? I thought there were some planets discovered earlier that fit that criteria, yet are unable to support life as we know it for other reasons (as gas giants IIRC). 178.190.34.207 (talk) 22:17, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

It is the first planet to be confirmed by the Kepler Telescope in the habitable zone, as it says in the article. Samcashion (talk) 22:21, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
There are other strong possible candidates, but they have been harder to confirm. There are also some that have been partially confirmed that are on the edge of the habitable zone (either in or out, but they aren't sure yet). And there is at least one that is tidally locked which does things to the surface temperatures that we are not able to evaluate yet. So yes, in short, this is the first confirmed planet, with no qualifications or reservations on the part of scientists. 64.134.124.157 (talk) 23:30, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
This is first planet in the habitable zone of a Sun-like star (G-type star) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.87.233.211 (talk) 15:01, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Picture of the Star?[edit]

That would be a great secondary picture (the artists conception should stay at the top). 64.134.124.157 (talk) 23:32, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

What Constellation is It In?[edit]

This would be of interest to both scientists and non scientists, allowing people to know where it is located in the sky. 64.134.124.157 (talk) 23:45, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

The Kepler-22 article provides the location in the sky. -- 98.28.22.128 (talk) 00:20, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Sources[edit]

What is the reason behind using secondary or even tertiary sources, such as space.com, when all information is available on the official Kepler Mission report at http://kepler.nasa.gov? --Hatteras (talk) 02:19, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

We definitely want the primary source, but the secondary sources show that the subject has received commentary, or attention, outside the primary source. Of course, we all know this is highly notable, but WP still requires that we "show our work" just as in science or math class.(mercurywoodrose)75.61.141.86 (talk) 02:22, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Very well, if it is "The more, the merrier" - so be it. --Hatteras (talk) 02:27, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Too Big For Life?[edit]

From the article: "At 2.4 times the size of the Earth, the planet may be too large for life to exist on the surface."

This sentence should be reworked. Is the author saying that life supporting planets have a size/mass limit? Or is s/he referring to gravity in relation to Earth? Life can be anything from single cell microbes (which, floating in a vast planetary ocean, wouldn't be too bothered by gravity a few times stronger than Earth's) to beings who could be looking right back at us wondering how anything could survive OUTSIDE a planetary ocean.

Certainly, "life as we know it" may not be possible on this world, but life most certainly is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.251.20.61 (talk) 21:03, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

That was more or less a paraphrase of what the AP article says. I've re-written it into something more sensible now. Sailsbystars (talk) 21:16, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry that was my fault. I should have quoted the speaker from the article. Kirsten Z Jacob 08:13, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

The gravity isn't clear yet, it will depend on the planets density. But even a rocky 2.4 Earth-mass planet could support life as we know it, given the presence of other factors like the right atmosphere and the presence of water.

64.134.236.146 (talk) 01:10, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Kepler-22b does not have only 2.4 Earth masses, even if it has a lower density than Earth. It has a radius 2.4 times Earth's, which corresponds to a volume 13.8 times Earth's. So at Earth's density, it would have the same mass as Uranus! Neither is it expected to be rocky, it's either a small gas giant or (less probable) an ocean planet. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 14:13, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Earth Similarity Index (ESI) score[edit]

I'm trying to find out the rating based on NASA/SETI's new ESI ratings system. Anyone know whether it has a higher score than Gliese 581 d ? If so it would officially be the most similar known planet yet to Earth. --EvenGreenerFish (talk) 21:13, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

According to this site, it has an ESI of either 0.64 or 0.79, and is not even among the top ten "Earth similarity" planets: [2]. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 21:03, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Small typo - I can't correct[edit]

"Natalie Batalha, one of the scientists on the poject, speculated"

Should be spelled "project". --nexxai (talk) 14:18, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Fixed. Sailsbystars (talk) 21:21, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Atmosphere[edit]

Various media reports have made mention of atmospheric conditions conducive to live, however I haven't been able to find anything that specifically mentions if an atmosphere has been confirmed for the planet. Certainly being one of the first of its kind identified via the transit method and has transited 3 times, no doubt someone has done some spectroscopy on this planet's atmosphere if it exists and drawn some basic conclusions. It would be very interesting to know if any biosignatures have been detected although possibly NASA would have ruled this out before making the media release. --EvenGreenerFish (talk) 21:20, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

As far as I know, atmospheres have only been detected on gas giant transiting planets. The atmospheric signature is too faint to detect for a planet of this size with our current telescopes. Sailsbystars (talk) 21:37, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Not yet, in our lifetime it's very likely we will be able to see the atmosphere, but not yet...

64.134.236.146 (talk) 00:46, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I thought as much I certainly wondered how they would make conclusions like surface temperature without details of an atmosphere. Sure the star is cooler than the sun, but it looks to be on the inner edge and assuming that larger more dense planets hold on to thicker atmospheres, and possibly have strong magnetospheres, you'd imagine its more likely to be an incredibly hot place like Venus, especially if it is true that tidal acceleration would slow down the length of its days and cause any oceans to boil away. --EvenGreenerFish (talk) 01:51, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
I agree, Venus-Like is much more likely give the size of the planet. This planet could still be a hellhole depending on the eccentricity of orbit, and the atmosphere.24.79.40.48 (talk) 08:45, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Higher gravity actually increases the likelyhood of a hot planet having liquid water. Venus is supposed to have lost its water after a runaway green house effect. This wouldn't have happened if Venus' gravity was higher. Lookup the "Kombayashi-Ingersoll limit". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.198.224.157 (talk) 06:28, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Lets Go There![edit]

OK all you garage-lab geniuses, get to work! --64.134.236.146 (talk) 01:07, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Calc 1[edit]

The first calculation is incorrect. Volume of a sphere is not approximately r cubed. The volume of a sphere is approximately 4 times r cubed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.55.58 (talk) 23:36, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

How is this business not original research?? All the calculations need references specific to the planet or should be removed. 24.79.40.48 (talk) 07:39, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Also the the calculations are circular in supporting a Second Earth, if the mass is 13 times the mass of the Earth, then it is deceptive to only be multiplying the GHG effect by 1 rather than the full 13, if it is like Earth. This kind of perfect scenario speculation only leads to media hype that will eventually be proven unwarranted and embarassing, as the presedents show. 24.79.40.48 (talk) 08:33, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

This planet could still be a hellhole depending on the eccentricity of orbit, and the atmosphere.24.79.40.48 (talk) 08:45, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Planets: Earth Kepler 22b
Eccentricity: 0.01671123 0.01671123 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.3
Perihelion Irradiance: 103.43% 121.18% 121.99% 124.52% 129.82% 144.64% 183.06% 239.11%
Semi-Maj. Axis Irradiance: 100.00% 117.16% 117.16% 117.16% 117.16% 117.16% 117.16% 117.16%
Aphelion Irradiance: 96.74% 113.34% 112.61% 110.44% 106.27% 96.83% 81.36% 69.33%
Variance Ranges: 6.69% 7.84% 9.38% 14.08% 23.55% 47.82% 101.70% 169.78%

For comparison only, not for the article. Until an eccentricity is publish, it is only a guessing game. 24.79.40.48 (talk) 09:25, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Original Research? Where?![edit]

The article is all quotes from mainstream news articles and online NASA press releases. I don't see anything remotely original. Unless I am missing something, can someone point out where that is? Thanks, 129.82.55.209 (talk) 04:20, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

"Calculation Notes" - Because it was removed by the time you got here, Here is where it was, Thanks 24.79.40.48 (talk) 02:29, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
It looks like the IP user 24.79.40.48 waffled a bit about how to address apparent OR in the Composition and Structure section. That section does appear to be appropriately labeled; neither of the inline citations in that section contain gravity or density speculation. That being said, unless someone can point me to a guideline that says otherwise, I don't think it's WP practice to put redundant message templates at the top and in the section under question; I'll remove the top template presently. - Sangrolu (talk) 13:06, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, only the sectional OR notice is necessary, or even an inline syn tag. I was waffling waffling on adding a tag there myself. The only thing stopping me was this little policy blurb. I'm pretty sure this goes beyond basic math though in that it involves scientific assumptions regarding density which are not covered by the linked policy. Sailsbystars (talk) 13:34, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, it's sort of a borderline case I could go either way on. As far as astrophysics goes, those are pretty basic calculations, but I think the article would be better served if a cite existed with that info. - Sangrolu (talk) 14:41, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Millions of precedents speak for OR being completely removed. Astrophysics calculations are not BASIC to the general public. I could show you all kinds of RELEVANT math and no one would want it in the article if they disagree with what it says about their special planet. AND at the time that I posted the OR tags the calulations had NO references.24.79.40.48 (talk) 00:14, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

its a long shot to see if it has life on it but lets give it a try. get to work people!!!!!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.222.248.61 (talk) 14:23, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Equilibrium Temperature comparisons[edit]

This chart is copied straight out of the article for Gliese 581 g.
Does anyone else think it would be a good idea to make it a standard chart for all extra-solar planets that are compared to Earth?
With the relevent values swapped in of course.
24.79.40.48 (talk) 17:05, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Temperature
comparisons
Venus Earth Gliese 581 g Mars
Global
equilibrium
temperature
307 K
34 °C
93 °F
255 K
−18 °C
−0.4 °F
209 K to 228 K
−64 °C to −45 °C
−83 °F to −49 °F
206 K
−67 °C
−88.6 °F
+ Venus'
GHG effect
737 K
464 °C
867 °F
+ Earth's
GHG effect
288 K
15 °C
59 °F
236 K to 261 K
−37 °C to −12 °C
−35 °F to 10 °F
+ Mars'
GHG effect
210 K
−63 °C
−81 °F
Tidally
locked
Almost No Probably No
Global
Bond Albedo
0.9 0.29 0.5 to 0.3 0.25
Refs.[1][2][3] [4][5]
Temperature
comparisons
Venus Earth Kepler 22b Mars
Global
equilibrium
temperature
307 K
34 °C
93 °F
255 K
−18 °C
−0.4 °F
-11 °C 206 K
−67 °C
−88.6 °F
+ Venus'
GHG effect
737 K
464 °C
867 °F
+ Earth's
GHG effect
288 K
15 °C
59 °F
♦ ?? ♦
+ Mars'
GHG effect
210 K
−63 °C
−81 °F
Tidally
locked
Almost No ♦ ?? ♦ No
Global
Bond Albedo
0.9 0.29 ♦ ?? ♦ 0.25
Refs.[1][2][3] [4][5]

24.79.40.48 (talk) 07:59, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I do think Earth's comparable figure should be included. I believe it is 14C from the article Earth. Comparison with Earth is I imagine a point of great interest in an article like this 86.184.160.59 (talk) 12:58, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I would also have to agree with this. Thing that makes this planet have such hype about it and a reason we are all here making edits is the fact that it is comparable to earth. I think it important to have an easy chart like this to allow us to see the details quick and easy. Also it allows a spot of the information to be added quickly as it continues to come out. MathewDill (talk) 16:09, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Since no one disagree with two agree votes I will add it.24.79.40.48 (talk) 00:27, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
These charts are nonsense and should not be used. Please see discussion at Equilibrium_Temperature. Also, 2 of the references don't point anywhere. Q Science (talk) 10:15, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
In fact, none of the temperatures seems to be supported by either of the sources. Dubious indeed...--Roentgenium111 (talk) 19:38, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

the references have to be corrected as they didn't copy over correctly http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gliese_581_g#Temperatures
24.79.38.15 (talk) 22:17, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

References[edit]

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Vogt was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference Stephens was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ a b "NASA, Mars: Facts & Figures". Retrieved 2010-01-28. 
  4. ^ a b Mallama, A.; Wang, D.; Howard, R.A. (2006). "Venus phase function and forward scattering from H2SO4". Icarus 182 (1): 10–22. Bibcode:2006Icar..182...10M. doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2005.12.014. 
  5. ^ a b Mallama, A. (2007). "The magnitude and albedo of Mars". Icarus 192 (2): 404–416. Bibcode:2007Icar..192..404M. doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2007.07.011. 

Gravity[edit]

In citation #7 it suggest that the gavity for the two different types of planets it could be. That is 1.75 for rocky planet and 6.17 for a neptune like planet. Would it be worth noting that is has an estimated gravity range between 1.75-6.17 or is this to early to even suggest?MathewDill (talk) 16:14, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

It's not too early to suggest a range of masses and thus gravities. Something that size and dark must be planetary in composition. It must be in the earth-neptune range of densities.

I think citation #7 is wrong. If the object has the same density as earth, its surface gravity would be 2.4G. If it is neptune-like with a density of 1.7 then its 'surface' gravity would be 0.75G. (i.e. as compared to earth, 2.4^3 volume. 2.4 farther away. 1/2.4^2 for 1/r^2 so for same density 2.4G. For (1.7/5.5) times the density, 2.4*1.7/5.5=0.75G)

Please be skeptical about citation #7.

See my reply below. (It's now ref. #8.) (And please sign your post(s)!) --Roentgenium111 (talk) 00:37, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Front News Feed[edit]

This should be on the newsfeed at the front wiki page --NarlySai — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.42.184.75 (talk) 16:59, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Stop The Reckless Edits[edit]

Okay everyone. Firstly, there is not enough information currently available about the planet. Secondly, too much information is being added which is either irrelevant or repetitive then being removed by one Wikipedian, whilst being reverted by another. This has got to stop. This shouldn't be the most massive article or even an average sized one. The amount of actual data available should be reflected in the article's size and if this means just one paragraph and an infobox, so be it. I just wanted to stress this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KirtZJ (talkcontribs)

Personally I wouldn't sweat it. This happens any time an important scientific discovery is announced. Eventually the dust will settle and the article can be tidied up. Regards, RJH (talk) 17:07, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Exoplanet update radius[edit]

Exoplanet has updated it to .21 jupiter radi from .234? Some good news. http://www.exoplanet.eu/catalog-all.php?&munit=&runit=&punit=&mode=-7&more=

--Matthurricane (talk) 03:24, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Mass and Density[edit]

This line from the page is misreported in the media and makes no sense whatsoever.

"It has been estimated that it is probably a "Neptunian" gas planet with a mass of ~35 Earth masses, but in the "best case" it could be an ocean world with only some 10 Earth masses."

A Neptunian planet would have a low density, so for a fixed radius it would have a low mass. A more earth like ocean planet would have a higher density, so for a fixed radius it would have a higher mass. The referenced article either transposed the numbers or the writer doesn't understand basic math. If you watch Bill Boruki's presentation at the Kepler Science Conference he shows a slide presenting the different composition possibilities for Kepler-22b. You can see from the slide that a higher mass planet would be a denser more ocean like planet. I tried to correct this error in the article, but someone reverted it. This should be fixed, since it is an obvious error in the referenced article. Martin Cash (talk) 16:50, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for noting. It seems the reference uses "Neptunian" strictly in the sense of "mass similar to Neptune's", so a "Neptunian" needs not be a gas giant. So they apparently made no factual errors, but only used unfortunate wordings. I've tried to fix it in the article.
Do you have a link to Boruki's slide? That would be a good source... --Roentgenium111 (talk) 00:16, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
PS: Do you mean this slide [3]? According to it, a water planet of this size would only have some 4 Earth masses, even lower than the referenced article's value. And the 35 Earth-masses might correspond to an Earth-like composition, according to the slide. But such a massive "terrestrial" planet sounds very dubious to me... --Roentgenium111 (talk) 00:33, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes, that's the slide. The text in the article should be updated to reflect that slide, not the misreported line from the media. Thanks.Martin Cash (talk) 02:28, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Well, the slide doesn't say which of the compositions is most likely, which is a useful info from the PHL website IMO. Personally, I would expect Kepler-22b to be a "gas dwarf" like Kepler-11f with only some 2 Earth masses, since it's even cooler than 11f (thus being able to hold even more hydrogen). But I haven't seen any source stating that opinion. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 19:09, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Confirmation process ?[edit]

The article says that additional confirmation data was provided by ground based telescopes, but doesn't clarify exactly which method/s were used. Would it be correct in assuming that it is also the transit method based on subsequent transits or was it observed also using another different method ? --EvenGreenerFish (talk) 20:48, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

The paper mentions data acquired at the WIYN 3.5m, although the radial velocity data was only an upper limit. The paper is now linked to in the external link sections so you can see for yourself. The secondary sources mentioned nothing beyond "Sptizer and ground based observatories." Sailsbystars (talk) 21:35, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Extrasolar Planet Naming: "Kepler-22b" Or "Kepler-22 b" Or Some Other?[edit]

Is the Article Title Name best phrased as: "Kepler-22b" (hyphen/no-space) - Or - "Kepler-22 b" (hyphen/space) - Or - "Kepler 22 b" (space/space) - Or - "Kepler 22-b" (space/hyphen) - Or - "Kepler 22b" (space/no-space) - Or - Some Other? - Seems there may be ample examples for the various phrasings - For Example, see "Kepler-10b" and "Kepler-16b" and "Kepler-22b" (per SIMBAD) - AS WELL AS - "Kepler-22 b" (per UPR Arecibo) and "Kepler-22 b" (per EPE) and "Kepler-22 b" (per EDE) and "Kepler-10 b" (per NASA) - AS WELL AS - "Gliese 581 d" and "Gliese 581 g" - AS WELL AS - "Kepler 22-b" (per Sci Am) - AS WELL AS - "Kepler 22b" (per CAS) - ALSO SEE - the Official Wikipedia "Extrasolar Planet" Naming Convention - AND - Nomenclature of "Extrasolar Planets" - AND - Astronomical Naming of "Extrasolar Planets" - AND - an earlier related Naming Discussion (thanks to Aldaron) - AND - the Official IAU "Extrasolar Planet" Naming Convention - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 23:42, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I believe "Kepler-22b" without spaces seems more appropriate. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 03:13, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
"Kepler-22b" is the formatting on the Kepler discoveries website, I think it makes sense to keep this. Hekerui (talk) 13:27, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
I'd go with SIMBAD [4] and the exoplanet database[5], which are pretty close to the final word in these matters. Except apparently they disagree. The Kepler-22 part seems to be pretty standard, but as to whether the b gets a space or not there does not seem to be a single answer. Argh! For now I think we should just leave the title be and go with the mantra of WP:AINT. Sailsbystars (talk) 13:32, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
The general question of whether there should be a space between the star number and the planet letter has been the subject of much past discussion, both are used in the literature, where the decision is generally a matter of a given publisher's editorial policy, and not one of established guidelines. Most comprehensive online databases include a space and this corresponds to the only statement on the matter that I'm aware of. AldaronT/C 18:38, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
There may be a major database that uses it that way, but we should make Wikipedia articles on Kepler objects uniform in style, which means not using a space. Please check the other similar articles you started - I suspect you made a mistake. Hekerui (talk) 21:52, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
I believe you misunderstand the point, which is to be have a style that reflects actual use. As explained, both the IAU and all databases use a space. This has been explained before. AldaronT/C 02:27, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
In that case a centralized discussion about changing all the article names to reflect your concerns should decide that. However, I don't see consensus on the discussion page you linked. Regards Hekerui (talk) 15:00, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

As Wikipedia:Naming conventions (astronomical objects)#Extrasolar planets states that either form is acceptable and neither name has particular prominence on Google scholar, I'd like to suggest just leaving it be. Regards, RJH (talk) 16:43, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

It could be made searchable by all of those. I forget how to do it, but there is a way. 64.134.29.243 (talk) 19:40, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Does it Meet the Criteria for a Proper Name?[edit]

I notice that certain notable exo-bodies get proper names (like Wolf, or Lalande, Crab Nebulae etc...) will Kepler 22b receive one? As it seems that it certainly does qualify. 64.134.29.243 (talk) 19:43, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

There are no "official" rules for when stars or exoplanets qualify to get a proper name (unlike the situation e.g. for minor planets). Since no single exoplanet has received a proper name yet, I doubt this one will get one. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 20:04, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
If it does, I vote for "Krypton", just for the fun of it. It fits the general description. :D
--72.196.104.217 (talk) 17:05, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Actual Transit Dates[edit]

I'd like to know more accurate list of transit dates for this object. The current dates mentioned in the article are far too vague (ie 1st - "mid-2009". 3rd - "late 2010"). If the orbital period is 290 days (article also contradicts by claiming 289 on same page), then one should be able to accurately extrapolate a complete list of transit dates. --EvenGreenerFish (talk) 05:05, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

The exact dates you added in 2012 ("Dec. 2010, May 2011") blatantly contradict the period claim... Did you just (mis)calculate them yourself, or did you have a (non-mentioned) source? --Roentgenium111 (talk) 16:21, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
This article has the actual three transits used in the confirmation process listed in Barycentric Julian dates.
BJD2454966.69775 +/-0.002182 (three dates cited: 13, 14 & 15 of May)
BJD2455256.55988 +/-0.001853
BJD2455546.42440 +/-0.00191 (one date cited: 1 October)
I have attempted to reconcile these dates in UTC without much success. Though within the article, at least two of the transit dates are explicitly mentioned, though I'm not sure as to which format.--EvenGreenerFish (talk) 14:47, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for working on it, but which article has those transit dates? The BJD dates and the 1Oct. 2011 are in the discovery article, but the "cited" May dates aren't. This WP article needs a reliable source for them if they should stay. BTW, the 3rd transit wasn't in Oct. 2011, but in the "2010 holiday season", according to the source we have (as well as maths).--Roentgenium111 (talk) 15:45, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
PS: The three BJD dates are 15 May 2009, 1 March 2010, 15 Dec. 2010 (Univ. Time each) according to [6] ...--Roentgenium111 (talk) 20:11, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Added to article, removed unref.ed dates. If I calculated correctly, the sixth transit would have occurred on 3 May 2013, when Kepler was unfortunately in safe mode. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 13:42, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Artists Conception in Infobox[edit]

I believe that this is misleading. It depicts a blue/green planet with clouds much like Earth, although little is actually known of whether there is even an atmosphere and may mislead people into making superficial assumptions about habitability. I propose that it should be replaced by a nondescript ball with a comparison in size to the Earth (and possibly Neptune) similarly to many similar articles and the artists conception should be moved to the "Possible Composition and Structure" section. --EvenGreenerFish (talk) 05:28, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I've done so. Feel free to make it look nicer. --107.203.16.194 (talk) 07:18, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Actually I think the blue/green is supposed to reference Uranus and Neptune, as given its size 22b is thought to be a mini-Neptune/waterworld and hence why there are no distinguishable landforms in the image. Unlike those two however Kepler-22b is assumed to have the right environmental conditions for particularly bright cloud layers, such as Earth's, to form. So the image is not that bad and about as accurate as can be expected, though perhaps the reality could be misleading to the uninitiated. ChiZeroOne (talk) 13:05, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Mass Section[edit]

In the infobox, the mass is marked as .97 Solar Mass, whereas the actual text gives an estimate by the Habitable Exoplanets Catalog which provides a figure of 6.36 earth masses. Someone should check/update the infobox or the text, whichever is is need of more update. 68.190.33.136 (talk) 15:03, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

The mass of the parent star is listed as .97 Solar Masses, not the planet. ChiZeroOne (talk) 15:12, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Article is now beyond "Start Class"[edit]

It is listed here as a "Start Class" article, but that is hardly the case anymore. Cliffswallow-vaulting (talk) 03:13, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

It has become a really good article as well. Compliments to whoever did the work. Cliffswallow-vaulting (talk) 03:15, 30 July 2014 (UTC)