Talk:Kepler-452b

"clearly an unthinkable amount of time."

This is a false statement. I'm an average human and I can think about how much time that would be. This part of the statement is sensationalist and should be removed in the interest of neutrality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.164.223.208 (talk) 22:07, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Untitled

Some images I pulled from the broadcast. http://imgur.com/a/7lFEl

Images used for the broadcast can be found at http://www.nasa.gov/keplerbriefing0723/ TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 16:43, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

"It is the second-most Earth-like planet known to date" ???

Shouldn't that be "It is the most Earth-like planet known to date" ?
E.g., see: "Astronomers at NASA have identified Kepler-452b, a planet 1,400 light years away from Earth, as the most Earth-like planet they've found to date": “In my mind, this is the closest thing we have to another planet like the Earth,” astronomer Jon Jenkins, with the U.S. space agency's Ames Research Center in Moffett Field, California, told reporters on a conference call.
Ronbarak (talk) 00:51, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

• Wouldn't the more Earth-like planet be the Earth itself? This guy could be pretty close, depending on what further observations reveal, but it is still in second place. Earth is the most Earth-like and everything else comes after that. Nutster (talk) 06:48, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  • That's taking it too far. In saying "Earth-like", it indicates that they obviously are not including Earth itself. Dustin (talk) 18:11, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

imaginary ESI index

As today, the NASA official Kepler web site does not report the mass of the planet http://kepler.nasa.gov/Mission/discoveries/ so while the planet radius is know with good approximation, the density is unknown. Many speculating web site report values from 5 EM to <1. So the ESI index for 452b reported in the article is completely arbitrary, remove it from an enciclopedia--Efa (talk) 20:12, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

• • I also think it should be removed, also the value of the mass in the table should be removed, the paper of the discovery says it does not have a mass measurement, only an estimation based on statistical models. --User:D. Allepuz

Kepler-452 Star Info

Is there any data on the star itself, apparent magnitude and the like? I'd be nice to add it to List of Stars in Cygnus

Kepler-452 b info

Any info on orbital eccentricity? Does it freeze or boil when close or far from the Kepler-452 Star? Telecine Guy 17:54, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

References

EPE

The EPE entry lists a semi-major axis of 1,046.0+0.15
−0.19 AU. It appears to be off by a few orders of magnitude. Did somebody put the decimal in the wrong place? Praemonitus (talk) 18:05, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Calculated temperature: 220.5 K (-52.65°C) is also very wrong, I don't trust this source at all. 24.79.40.162 (talk) 04:29, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Comparison section

Might it be more useful to modify the table in the comparison section to add more traditional planetary characteristics like mass, radius, semimajor axis, equilibrium temperature, et cetera? For one, these are more well-defined than the ESI and other indicators, and are the fundamental characteristics that go into making the determinations of the ESI and other indices listed. Wer902 (talk) 18:17, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

We ought to take care, as well, not to offend the inhabitants of this world, as they are undoubtedly strong and warlike. Pandeist (talk) 18:42, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I think that whole section should be split into a separate article, provided such a comparison is supported by sources to prove GNG AadaamS (talk) 09:05, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

In the News Nomination

This article has been proposed to be linked on the Front Page in the WP:ITN section. The nomination and voting can be found here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:38, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Irradiance 120% of Earth's

With a larger mass you can expect more GHG naturally, but with the irradiance of this planet being 20% more than Earth's you can expect it to be Venus-like.
R= 1, 1.1
T= 5778, 5905.064936
d= 1, 1.05
f= 1366.078686, 1635.577202
f%= 100.00%, 119.73%

• L=R²T⁴
T=(L/R²)^^0.25
1.021991162
5905.064936
24.79.40.162 (talk) 23:12, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

It is claimed in the article, "...it is likely to have an estimated mass of 5 M⊕, which would prevent Kepler-452b from succumbing to the runaway greenhouse effect for another 500 million years...". That claim is wrong, because a higher mass wouldn't by itself necessarily prevent Kepler-452b succumbing to a greenhouse effect. Actually, in general, you would logically expect, because of its larger mass, that it should have been able to hold onto a thicker atmosphere and so to have succumbed to a runaway greenhouse effect sooner, rather than later, than Earth. Ok, it is true, that a larger than Earth massed planet could in theory hold onto to just one atmosphere, and in that perhaps unlikely situation the atmosphere on that planet would have less width and volume to it than one atmosphere on Earth would, because a larger massed planet normally has a higher gravity and that higher gravity compresses any atmosphere onto the surface with greater force and follow on from that a comparatively thinner atmosphere is required to generate one atmosphere pressure onto the larger massed planet's surface. In that unlikely situation the runaway greenhouse effect could take longer due to the thinner atmosphere providing less insulation to heat loss from the planet. But, it is obviously (unless Earth is a freak) far more likely that Kepler-452b, exactly because it is more massive than Earth, would have a thicker rather than a thinner atmosphere so it is a bit of a moot point really. So, I would rewrite the claim, to at least make it sound vaguely credible, as "..it is likely to have an estimated mass of 5 M⊕, which could prevent Kepler-452b from succumbing to the runaway greenhouse effect for another 500 million years...", replacing the "would" with "could".

Temperature?

The mean temperature of the planet is listed as 5700+ K. That is not the habitable zone; that is the roasting zone. It won't we water flowing on the surface, but iron and tungsten. Can we get a better mean temperature or a better explanation of where that number came from? Nutster (talk) 07:04, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

The described temperature is the surface of the parent star. The temperature of the planet is not known for certain, but is obviously much lower than that. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 07:11, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

• Yeah, I caught that when I re-read the article. I did not realize that red dwarfs got that cool. Nutster (talk) 07:14, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

For comparison, the temperature of the Sun is about 5780 K. To help future confused readers, I added a rough estimated temperature of the planet. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 08:01, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

According to the discoverer, it is not likely that the planet is undergoing a venus run-away at least not for another billion years. The interview can be heard here: http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/space/go-for-launch/os-live-nasa-earthlike-kepler452b-20150725-htmlstory.html and the relevant discussion at ~29.00 minutes. The reference to runaway seems to be speculation from a science blog/news channels so I suggests deleting the suggestion of it being a venus runaway. Comments? 137.222.248.231 (talk) 11:47, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

According to the link that is supposed to be the source of the venus run-away comment, it's density should be enough to prevent this from happening. From my reading of the article this comment is misleading and should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.171.130.176 (talk) 20:28, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Near Earth sized?

Looking at the data the plant weighs about 5 earth masses and has a radius of 1.63 Earth radius. According to PHL's definition of a near Earth sized planet states the following: subterran = 0.1 — 0.5 ME or 0.4 — 0.8 RE, terran = 0.5 — 5 ME or 0.8 — 1.5 RE, superterran = 5 — 10 ME or 1.5 — 2.5 RE. ME = Earth masses, and RE = Earth radii. In conclusion this planet is superterran aka a Super-Earth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidbuddy9 (talk • contribs) 18:22, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Comparison to Kepler-186f?

I'd like to see another comparison to Kepler-186f - better than just the figure, which doesn't say much. I consider 186f to be more "Earth-like" thank 452b (the latter is much bigger than the Earth; it's year-length mean nothing when it comes to astrobiology), and would like to know why 452b is touted as more Earth-like by some. CielProfond (talk) 13:30, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

The primary difference between Kepler-186f and Kepler-452b is that the former orbits a red dwarf star, while the latter orbits a very sun-like star. A planet around a red dwarf can be prone to trouble, due to the proximity needed to be in the habitable zone, including the large flares of M-dwarfs, and the assumed tidal locking of the system, again do to its proximity. Basically, while Kepler-452b itself is likely less Earth-like than Kepler-186f, Kepler-452b orbits are more habitable star. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 06:13, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

There has to be a reference for such a comparison and then we can add it to the article. AadaamS (talk) 06:28, 29 July 2015 (UTC)