Talk:Kepler-22b

Astronomy: Astronomical objects Start‑class

	Astronomy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Astronomical objects, which collaborates on articles related to astronomical objects.

SETI Research

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)[reply]

Distance

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

About 600 light-years (http://www.space.com/13821-nasa-kepler-alien-planets-habitable-zone.html) Samcashion (talk) 19:04, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's too far! ;-) 205.169.70.175 (talk) 19:09, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Canopus is 300ly 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)[reply]

Mass/size

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)[reply]

Links

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)[reply]

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

Stat Box (On the right) Has Problem

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)[reply]

Article Needed for Parent Star Kepler 22b

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)[reply]

Bogus sources

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)[reply]

The BBC are an excellent source of science stories.--GwydionM (talk) 21:39, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Redirecting

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)[reply]

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

First in habitable zone

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Name To b e Determined at Time To b e Determined

Kepler dash numeral 22 beta will not be permanent name holder. -slippyfoster — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.163.66.50 (talk) 22:46, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Picture of the Star?

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)[reply]

What Constellation is It In?

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)[reply]

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

Sources

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Very well, if it is "The more, the merrier" - so be it. --Hatteras (talk) 02:27, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Too Big For Life?

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Earth Similarity Index (ESI) score

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)[reply]

Small typo - I can't correct

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

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

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

Atmosphere

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Calc 1

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.